Court Opinion

ID: 9367417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 19:00:33.692867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.197307
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20450        Document: 00516628866            Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/31/2023

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

                                      No. 22-20450                           FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                  January 31, 2023
                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk
   Marqueta Curry; Shaheedah Ellis,

                                                                 Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                            versus

   Anthony Valentin; VIP Freight, Incorporated,

                                                                Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Southern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 4:21-CV-2800

   Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Plaintiffs-Appellants, Marqueta Curry and Shaheedah Ellis, appeal
   the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees,
   Anthony Valentin and VIP Freight, Inc., dismissing this action as barred by
   Texas’s two-year statute of limitations. For the reasons set forth below, we
   AFFIRM.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20450         Document: 00516628866              Page: 2       Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                          No. 22-20450

                                                I.
           On July 10, 2019, Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident
   while driving on Interstate Highway 10 in Houston, Texas. Plaintiffs allege
   that Defendant Anthony Valentin, while operating a commercial truck in the
   course and scope of his employment with Defendant VIP Freight, Inc.,
   negligently entered Plaintiffs’ lane of traffic causing a collision. On July 30,
   2021, two years and twenty days after the accident, Plaintiffs filed suit in state
   court to recover for their alleged damages. Defendants filed an answer,
   raising the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense.1 Defendants then
   removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
           Plaintiffs thereafter moved for partial summary judgment on
   Defendants’ statute of limitations defense. Plaintiffs argued that although
   they filed their suit more than two years after the accident occurred, their
   filing was timely under the Emergency Orders issued by the Texas Supreme
   Court in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, Plaintiffs argued
   that certain Emergency Orders “create[d] a continuous chain of extensions
   from March 13, 2020 through October 1, 2021.”
           Defendants responded by filing a cross-motion for summary judgment
   and an alternative motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state
   a claim. They argued that Plaintiffs’ action was time barred because,
   contrary to Plaintiffs’ contentions, none of the Emergency Orders issued by
   the Texas Supreme Court applied to extend the statute of limitations in this
   case.       Defendants contended that the applicable two-year statute of

           1
            Under Texas law, “a person must bring suit for . . . personal injury . . . not later
   than two years after the day the cause of action accrues.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
   Code § 16.003(a).

                                                2
Case: 22-20450           Document: 00516628866                Page: 3       Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                             No. 22-20450

   limitations expired on July 12, 2021;2 therefore, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit was time
   barred because it was not filed until July 30, 2021. In response, Plaintiffs
   specifically relied on Emergency Order Eight, and argued that it tolled all
   statutes of limitations for eighty days, from March 13, 2020, until June 1,
   2020. Plaintiffs contended that an eighty-day extension of time was more
   than sufficient to make their action timely.
           The magistrate judge reviewed the pertinent Emergency Orders
   issued by the Texas Supreme Court relating to the COVID-19 pandemic and
   determined that the orders “did not categorically suspend all statutes of
   limitations for an eighty-day period.” Furthermore, the magistrate judge
   determined “that Emergency Order Twelve supersede[d] any claimed,
   blanket tolling of limitations in Emergency Order Eight.” The magistrate
   judge recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be
   granted. Overruling the Plaintiffs’ objections, the district court adopted the
   magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissed Plaintiffs’ suit
   as time-barred. Plaintiffs timely filed a notice of appeal.
                                                   II.
           This Court reviews the district court’s summary judgment de novo.3
   Summary judgment is proper “if the movant shows that there is no genuine
   dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
   matter of law.”4 As this is a diversity case in which the cause of action arises
   under state law, we apply the state statute of limitations.5 Under Texas law,

           2
           Because July 10, 2021, was a Saturday, Plaintiffs had until the next business day,
   Monday, July 12, 2021, to file their action under the two-year limitations period.
           3
               Camacho v. Ford Motor Co., 993 F.3d 308, 311 (5th Cir. 2021).
           4
               Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
           5
               Texas Soil Recycling, Inc. v. Intercargo Ins. Co., 273 F.3d 644, 649 (5th Cir. 2001).

                                                    3
Case: 22-20450         Document: 00516628866           Page: 4   Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                        No. 22-20450

   suits for personal injury must be filed “not later than two years after the day
   the cause of action accrues.”6 It is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ cause of action
   accrued on the day of the accident, July 10, 2019. It is also undisputed that
   under a straightforward application of Texas’s two-year statute of
   limitations, Plaintiffs needed to file their action by Monday, July 12, 2021.
                                             A.
          On appeal, Plaintiffs reassert their argument that the Eighth
   Emergency Order issued by the Texas Supreme Court tolled the limitations
   period in this case for eighty days, such that their action, which was filed on
   July 30, 2021, was timely.
          The Eighth Emergency Order issued by the Texas Supreme Court on
   April 1, 2020, relating to the COVID-19 pandemic provides in pertinent part:
   “Any deadline for the filing or service of any civil case is tolled from March
   13, 2020, until June 1, 2020, unless extended by the Chief Justice of the
   Supreme Court.”7 On April 27, 2020, the Texas Supreme Court issued the
   Twelfth Emergency Order which “renewed as clarified and amended” several
   prior Emergency Orders, including the Eighth Emergency Order.8
   Specifically, the Twelfth Emergency Order provided: “Any deadline for the
   filing or service of any civil case that falls on a day between March 13, 2020,
   and June 1, 2020, is extended until July 15, 2020.”9 Under its plain language,
   the Twelfth Emergency Order made clear that the deadlines subject to
   extension under the Eighth Emergency Order were those that fell between

          6
              Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a).
          7
              597 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2020).
          8
              629 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. 2020) (emphasis added).
          9
              Id.

                                              4
Case: 22-20450          Document: 00516628866           Page: 5      Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                         No. 22-20450

   March 13, 2020, and June 1, 2020, and that those deadlines would be
   extended to July 15, 2020.
           Plaintiffs’ tolling argument ignores the clear language of the Twelfth
   Emergency Order which, as the district court herein observed, “distinctly
   identified” the time frame of the deadlines affected and the date to which
   those deadlines would be extended. As this Court recently noted, the
   Emergency Orders issued by the Texas Supreme Court relating to the
   COVID-19 pandemic are applicable to “only certain cases.”10
           The last Emergency Order to extend the deadline for the filing of civil
   cases, the Twenty-First Emergency Order, provides that “[a]ny deadline for
   the filing or service of any civil case that falls on a day between March 13,
   2020, and September 1, 2020, is extended until September 15, 2020.”11
   Because the filing deadline for Plaintiffs’ action did not fall between
   March 13, 2020, and September 1, 2020, the two-year statute of limitations
   was not subject to extension. Therefore, Plaintiffs were required to file their
   action by July 12, 2021, which they did not do. Consequently, as the
   magistrate judge and district court concluded, Plaintiffs’ action is time-
   barred.
                                              B.
           Plaintiffs lastly argue that the district court should have exercised its
   discretion under the Fortieth Emergency Order issued by the Texas Supreme

           10
             Phillips v. Cero’s L.L.C., No. 22-10617, 2022 WL 16956798, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov.
   16, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished). Unpublished opinions issued in or after 1996 are
   “not controlling precedent” except in limited circumstances, but they “may be persuasive
   authority.” Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006).
           11
                609 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2020).

                                              5
Case: 22-20450          Document: 00516628866           Page: 6   Date Filed: 01/31/2023

                                         No. 22-20450

   Court.12 That order provides that “all courts in Texas may in any case, civil
   or criminal, . . . modify or suspend any and all deadlines and procedures,
   whether prescribed by statute, rule, or order, for a stated period ending no
   later than October 1, 2021.”13 Plaintiffs argue that the district court abused
   its discretion because it required Plaintiffs to produce evidence as a
   precondition to the court’s exercise of its discretion under the Fortieth
   Emergency Order.
          As the magistrate judge noted, Plaintiffs “articulated no reason why
   such an extension would be appropriate” in their case. In their objections to
   the magistrate judge’s report, Plaintiffs argued that the Fortieth Emergency
   Order gave courts “broad discretion to modify or suspend deadlines.”
   Plaintiffs also contended for the first time in their objections that because
   “[t]his case was filed during the heart of the COVID crisis” and “no more
   than twenty-one days after the two-year anniversary of the collision,” the
   district court should exercise its discretion. The district court overruled
   Plaintiffs’ objections, and declined to exercise its discretion.
          Under these circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion.
   Plaintiffs offered reasons that any party could have offered for an untimely
   filing during the pandemic. Based on the foregoing, the district court’s
   judgment is AFFIRMED.

          12
               629 S.W.3d 911 (Tex. 2021).
          13
               Id. (emphasis added).

                                              6