From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Proulx v. Wells

Supreme Court of Texas
Aug 31, 2007
235 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2007)

Summary

holding movant "failed to conclusively establish lack of diligence" because nonmovant presented some evidence that the movant "was moving from relative to relative and doing his best to avoid service from the courts and creditors."

Summary of this case from State v. $45,810.10 in U.S. Currency

Opinion

No. 06-0258.

August 31, 2007.

Appeal from the 352nd District Court, Tarrant County, Bonnie Sudderth, J.

Ronald T. McLain, The Crim Law Firm, Houston, for Denis Proulx.

Barry L. Hardin, Mark Goodman, David Goodman Madole, Dallas, for Michael A. Wells.


In this case, the court of appeals held that limitations barred the plaintiff's suit because, as a matter of law, he was not diligent in serving the defendant with process. 186 S.W.3d 630, 631. We hold that the summary-judgment evidence failed to conclusively establish that the plaintiff did not exercise diligence in effecting service, and reverse the court of appeals' judgment.

Denis Proulx filed this personal-injury suit against Michael Wells on May 2, 2003, shortly before the statute of limitations expired on May 21, 2003. Proulx's process server, Brian Duffe, received the citation on May 20, 2003, and from May 21, 2003, until September 17, 2003, he made twenty-three attempts to serve Wells at four different addresses. Eleven of these attempts were made between May 21st and July 22nd at 701 Riverside Drive in Arlington, Texas. On July 31, 2003, Duffe informed Proulx's attorney that he did not believe Wells lived at that address, and an in-house investigator was utilized to ascertain Wells's whereabouts. The investigator located three possible alternative addresses for Wells, and Duffe made twelve unsuccessful attempts between August 5 and September 17, 2003, to serve Wells at those addresses.

On October 17, 2003, Proulx turned to another process server, Cynthia Rosser, for assistance. From the time she received the citation on October 17, 2003, until December 5, 2003, Rosser made seven service attempts at two different addresses. In addition, between December 5 and December 10, 2003, Rosser made over twenty calls to Wells's brother, who resided at the address Wells listed on his driver's license. During this time, Proulx also hired a private investigator, Arthur Cantrell, to locate Wells. Cantrell concluded that Wells was moving from relative to relative in an attempt to avoid service from creditors and courts, and suggested that substituted service under Rule 106 would be the best solution. TEX.R.CIV.P. 106(b). On January 15, 2004, Proulx filed a motion for substituted service. Service was finally effected by substituted service on Wells's brother on January 26, 2004, a little over eight months after the statute of limitations expired. Wells moved for summary judgment claiming that, although suit was timely filed, the statute of limitations had run because Proulx failed to exercise due diligence in securing service of process. The trial court granted summary judgment in Wells's favor, and a divided court of appeals affirmed, holding Proulx lacked diligence in effecting service as a matter of law. 186 S.W.3d at 631. We disagree.

A suit for personal injuries must be brought within two years from the time the cause of action accrues. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE § 16.003(a). But a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation. Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Tex. 1990); Rigo Mfg. Co. v. Thomas, 458 S.W.2d 180, 182 (Tex. 1970). If service is diligently effected after limitations has expired, the date of service will relate back to the date of filing. Gant v. DeLeon, 786 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex. 1990).

Our jurisprudence has at times been less than clear in explaining the summary-judgment burden that inheres when the diligent-service question is presented. See Brown v. Shores, 77 S.W.3d 884, 888-89 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (BRISTER, C.J., concurring); Tranter v. Duemling, 129 S.W.3d 257, 260 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2004, no pet.). We have stated that a plaintiff's mere pleading of diligence in response to a summary-judgment motion shifts the burden to the defendant to disprove diligence as a matter of law. See Zale Corp. v. Rosenbaum, 520 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. 1975) ("[When the nonmovant] pleads diligence in requesting issuance of citation, the limitation defense is not conclusively established until the movant meets his burden of negating the applicability of [this] issue."). More recently, we have said that once the defendant demonstrates that service occurred after the limitations deadline, the burden shifts to the plaintiff "to explain the delay." Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 830. These seemingly inconsistent statements, however, are not irreconcilable when read in context. In Zale, though we did not refer to the record before us, the plaintiff in fact presented evidence explaining the delay in service. See 520 S.W.2d at 890-91. Because the plaintiff both pled and presented evidence of due diligence in effecting service, our holding that the defendant then bore the burden to disprove diligence as a matter of law does not conflict with our analysis in Murray.

In Murray, we held that once a defendant has affirmatively pled the limitations defense and shown that service was effected after limitations expired, the burden shifts to the plaintiff "to explain the delay." 800 S.W.2d at 830. Thus, it is the plaintiff's burden to present evidence regarding the efforts that were made to serve the defendant, and to explain every lapse in effort or period of delay. See Gant, 786 S.W.2d at 260. In some instances, the plaintiff's explanation may be legally improper to raise the diligence issue and the defendant will bear no burden at all. See Brown, 77 S.W.3d at 890 (BRISTER, C.J., concurring) (citing Belleza-Gonzalez v. Villa, 57 S.W.3d 8, 11 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (holding unenforceable oral agreement to delay service was insufficient to show diligence as a matter of law), and Broom v. MacMaster, 992 S.W.2d 659, 665 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.) (holding plaintiff's desire to obtain remand from federal court did not justify delay in serving defendant)). In others, the plaintiff's explanation of its service efforts may demonstrate a lack of due diligence as a matter of law, as when one or more lapses between service efforts are unexplained or patently unreasonable. See, e.g., Gant, 786 S.W.2d at 260; Brown, 77 S.W.3d at 887; Tarrant County v. Vandigriff, 71 S.W.3d 921, 925-26 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2002, pet. denied). But if the plaintiff's explanation for the delay raises a material fact issue concerning the diligence of service efforts, the burden shifts back to the defendant to conclusively show why, as a matter of law, the explanation is insufficient. Zale, 520 S.W.2d at 891.

In assessing diligence, the relevant inquiry is whether the plaintiff acted as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances and was diligent up until the time the defendant was served. See Tate v. Beal, 119 S.W.3d 378, 381 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2003, pet. denied); Hodge v. Smith, 856 S.W.2d 212, 215 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). Generally, the question of the plaintiff's diligence in effecting service is one of fact, and is determined by examining the time it took to secure citation, service, or both, and the type of effort or lack of effort the plaintiff expended in procuring service. See Webster v. Thomas, 5 S.W.3d 287, 289-90 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet).

In this case, Wells contends there were periods of delay for which Proulx failed to provide an adequate explanation, and in any event the nine months that elapsed between the time suit was filed and substituted service was effected demonstrates lack of diligence as matter of law. Proulx, on the other hand, contends his summary-judgment evidence adequately explains all periods of delay between the filing of suit and service of citation. According to Proulx, the evidence presented and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom demonstrate that his efforts to procure service were those an ordinarily prudent person would have used under the same or similar circumstances, particularly in light of evidence that Wells was actively avoiding service. The court of appeals identified specific periods of delay in Proulx's service efforts, and concluded Proulx was not diligent in effecting service during these times. 186 S.W.3d at 636. Specifically, the court pointed to a nineteen-day period from the lawsuit's filing to the first process server's receipt of citation, three weeks that passed between dismissal of the suit for want of prosecution and the filing of a motion to reinstate, a nearly five-month period that passed before Proulx hired a private investigator to locate Wells, twenty-four days that passed before citation was delivered to the second process server, and the overall nine months that passed between filing of suit and successful service. Id. However, that some periods of time elapsed between service efforts does not conclusively demonstrate that Proulx was not exercising diligence in his efforts to locate Wells. According to the summary-judgment evidence, Proulx utilized two process servers and two investigators in attempting to locate an address at which service could be effected. Over the course of the nine months that elapsed before substituted service was obtained, thirty service attempts were made at five different addresses. The difficulties that Proulx encountered in effecting service were attributed by a private investigator to the fact that Wells was "moving from relative to relative and doing his best to avoid service from the courts and creditors." The circumstances presented are far different from those in which courts have found lack of diligence as a matter of law.

Ninety days after Proulx's suit was filed, the trial court issued a notice of intent to dismiss the case for want of prosecution unless, by September 30, 2003, (1) Wells was served and either filed an answer or a default was taken against him, or (2) a motion to retain was filed. The trial court dismissed the case when neither occurred, but later reinstated it on Proulx's attorney's motion explaining that the failure to appear was the result of a calendaring error.

In Gant, for example, we held that the plaintiff had failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law because he provided no explanation for delays in service for three periods totaling thirty-eight months. 786 S.W.2d at 260; see also Webster, 5 S.W.3d at 291 (holding no due diligence as a matter of law when evidence showed plaintiff's actions over four months were not designed to procure the issuance and service of citation); Butler v. Ross, 836 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (holding five-and-a-half months of inactivity and no service efforts between failed attempts at the wrong address and proper service at the correct address constituted a lack of due diligence); Hansler v. Mainka, 807 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no writ) (stating that request for service five months after suit was filed affirmatively demonstrated lack of due diligence). In this case, there are no comparable periods of unexplained inaction. In light of the evidence that was presented regarding Proulx's continuous investigation and repeated service attempts, coupled with evidence that Wells was deliberately avoiding service, we conclude that Wells failed to conclusively establish lack of diligence.

Accordingly, without hearing oral argument pursuant to Rule 59.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.


Summaries of

Proulx v. Wells

Supreme Court of Texas
Aug 31, 2007
235 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2007)

holding movant "failed to conclusively establish lack of diligence" because nonmovant presented some evidence that the movant "was moving from relative to relative and doing his best to avoid service from the courts and creditors."

Summary of this case from State v. $45,810.10 in U.S. Currency

holding that "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from Farris v. Evans

holding that argument that plaintiff did not use diligence in serving citation for petition filed within limitations period may be raised by affirmative pleading of limitations and establishing that service occurred after any limitations period had expired; burden shifts to plaintiff to demonstrate diligence; plaintiff's diligence in effecting service is question of fact

Summary of this case from City of Houston v. Bryant

holding "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from Shaw v. Lynch

holding question of plaintiff's diligence in effecting service is generally one of fact

Summary of this case from Hull v. Vidaurri

finding that defendant failed to conclusively establish lack of due diligence even though nine months passed between filing of suit and successful service

Summary of this case from MENA v. LENZ

determining that movant failed to conclusively establish lack of diligence when evidence showed plaintiff had made 30 attempts at service at five addresses over nine-month period and had hired two process servers and two investigators to locate defendant, who had been actively dodging service

Summary of this case from Ventura v. Vasquez

determining that evidence of 30 attempts at service at five addresses over eight-month period and of hiring of two process servers and two investigators was sufficient to create fact issue regarding diligence

Summary of this case from Hull v. Vidaurri

noting that plaintiff requested and received citation prior to expiration of limitations

Summary of this case from Flanigan v. Nekkalapu

providing that "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from Richardson v. Clack

providing that "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from Ruiz v. Pollock

providing that "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from Ventura v. Vasquez

In Proulx, the plaintiff presented evidence that it had hired investigators and that multiple process servers had attempted to serve the defendant thirty times at five different addresses over the nine-month period from the date the law suit was filed until shortly before limitations ran. 235 S.W.3d at 217.

Summary of this case from Budget Rent A Car Sys., LLC v. Valadez

providing that "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from Zamora v. Cruz

stating that unexplained lapses and explanations that are patently unreasonable fail to meet burden

Summary of this case from Perez v. Efurd

In Proulx, the supreme court considered whether an almost nine-month delay between the time suit was filed and the defendant was served by substituted service demonstrated a lack of diligence as a matter of law.

Summary of this case from St. John Backhoe Serv. v. Vieth

explaining that "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from St. John Backhoe Serv. v. Vieth

noting that where there are one or more lapses between service efforts that are unexplained, plaintiff's explanation demonstrates lack of due diligence as a matter of law

Summary of this case from Samaniego v. Silguero

analyzing period of delay “between the filing of suit and service of citation”

Summary of this case from Sharp v. Kroger Tex. L.P.

requiring diligence up until the time of service

Summary of this case from Washko v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc.

explaining that "a timely filed suit will not interrupt the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence in the issuance and service of citation"

Summary of this case from Butler v. Skegrud

reasoning that plaintiff must present evidence of efforts she made to serve the defendant and explain every lapse in effort or period of delay

Summary of this case from Rigsby v. EECU

noting that explanations for service that do not account for lapses in service efforts may be "patently unreasonable"

Summary of this case from Villanueva v. McCash Enters., Inc.

In Proulx, the Texas Supreme Court held that three-week delays between issuance of a citation and the process server's receipt of citation, two attempts at service at different addresses, and a three-week delay between the order permitting substituted service on the defendant's brother and the first attempt at service on the brother did not conclusively show lack of diligence.

Summary of this case from Fontenot v. Gibson

In Proulx, the Texas Supreme Court considered whether a nine-month delay between the time the suit was filed and substituted service was effected demonstrated lack of diligence as a matter of law. 235 S.W.3d at 215-16.

Summary of this case from Vasquez v. Aguirre
Case details for

Proulx v. Wells

Case Details

Full title:Denis PROULX, Petitioner v. Michael A. WELLS, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court of Texas

Date published: Aug 31, 2007

Citations

235 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2007)

Citing Cases

Cuba v. Williams

A timely filed suit does not suspend the running of limitations unless the plaintiff exercises due diligence…

Ruiz v. Pollock

Summary judgment on a limitations affirmative defense involves shifting burdens of proof. Proulx v. Wells,…