Court Opinion

ID: 9965651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 00:00:48.604403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:20.976796
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20317         Document: 130-1           Page: 1    Date Filed: 05/02/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                 ____________                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                            Fifth Circuit

                                                                          FILED
                                   No. 22-20317                        May 2, 2024
                                 ____________
                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                          Clerk
Lee Marvin Sanders; Matthew Sodrok,

                                                              Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                        versus

The Boeing Company; Kidde Technologies,
Incorporated; Jamco America, Incorporated,

                                          Defendants—Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Texas
                          USDC No. 4:21-CV-4042
                 ______________________________

Before Elrod, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Jennifer Walker Elrod, Circuit Judge:
       Plaintiffs Lee Marvin Sanders and Matthew Sodrok appealed the
district court’s dismissal of their claims as barred by Texas’s statute of
limitations. We certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas
regarding the proper interpretation of Texas’s jurisdiction savings statute,
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.064. 1 First, we asked whether
       _____________________
       1
         Our previous opinion certifying the two questions to the Texas Supreme Court is
Sanders v. Boeing Co., 68 F.4th 977 (5th Cir. 2023).
Case: 22-20317        Document: 130-1         Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                     No. 22-20317

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.064 applies to this lawsuit where
Plaintiffs could have invoked the prior district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction with proper pleading. Sanders v. Boeing Co., 68 F.4th 977, 984
(5th Cir. 2023). Second, we asked whether Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit within
sixty days of when the prior judgment became “final” for purposes of Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.064(a)(2). Id.
       In a characteristically thorough and well-reasoned opinion, the
Supreme Court of Texas answered “yes” to both certified questions. Under
Texas law, Section 16.064(a)(1) applies whenever the previous court
dismisses an action for lack of jurisdiction. Sanders v. Boeing Co., 680 S.W.3d
340, 351 (Tex. 2023). This is so even when the court “erred and actually had
jurisdiction or could have had jurisdiction had the claims been pleaded
differently.” Id.
       Further, a dismissal or other disposition does not “‘become[] final’
for purposes of Section 16.064(a)(2) [until] the parties have exhausted their
appellate remedies and the courts’ power to alter the dismissal has ended.”
Id. at 357–58.
       Thus, § 16.064 applies to this lawsuit where the Dallas district court
dismissed Plaintiffs’ previous action for lack of jurisdiction and Plaintiffs filed
this second action within sixty days after they had exhausted all appeals from
that dismissal and “the appellate court lost plenary power.” Id. at 358.
                                 *        *         *
       Because the Supreme Court of Texas has conclusively determined
that § 16.064 applies in this case, we REVERSE the district court’s
judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

                                              2