Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lee Marvin SANDERS; Matthew Sodrok, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. The BOEING COMPANY; Kidde Technologies, Incorporated; Jamco America, Incorporated, Defendants—Appellees.
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 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.
FOOTNOTES
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).
Jennifer Walker Elrod, Circuit Judge:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 22-20317
Decided: May 02, 2024
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)