Curry v. Valentin

• Decision Date: 11 July 2022
• Docket Number: 4:21-cv-02800
• Parties: Marqueta S. Curry and Shaheedah Ellis, Plaintiffs, v. Anthony Valentin and VIP Freight, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

Marqueta S. Curry and Shaheedah Ellis, Plaintiffs,
v.
Anthony Valentin and VIP Freight, Inc., Defendants.

No. 4:21-cv-02800

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

July 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Yvonne Y. Ho United States Magistrate Judge

In this personal injury action, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment that dispute whether the claims asserted by Plaintiffs Marqueta S. Curry and Shaheedah Ellis (“Plaintiffs”) are time-barred as a matter of law. Dkts. 4 & 8. After carefully considering the parties' motions, id., response, Dkt. 8, supplement, Dkt. 15, reply, Dkt. 20, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' suit is barred by the statute of limitations. It is therefore recommended that the Court deny Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, grant the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Anthony Valentin and VIP Freight, Inc. (“Defendants”), and enter a take nothing judgment on Plaintiffs' claims.

1

Background

On July 10, 2019, Plaintiffs were involved in a car accident while driving on I-10 in Harris County. Dkt. 1-1 at 4. According to their allegations, Defendant Anthony Valentin, a driver for Defendant VIP Freight, improperly merged into Plaintiffs' lane, collided with their car, and injured Plaintiffs. Id.

In March of 2020, the United States was struck by the COVID-19 Pandemic. On March 13, 2020, the same day that Governor Greg Abbot issued a disaster declaration, the Texas Supreme Court issued its first emergency order. See Misc. Docket No. 20-9042, 596 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. 2020) (hereinafter “Emergency Order One”).^[1] In that order, the Court declared that “[a]ll courts in Texas may extend the statute of limitations in any civil case for a stated period ending no later than 30 days after the Governor's state of disaster has been lifted.” Id. Since then, the Court has issued more than fifty Emergency Orders modifying procedures and extending deadlines, most recently on June 20, 2022. See, e.g., Emergency Order Fifty-Three, Misc. Docket No. 22-9049 (Tex. June 20, 2022).

In the interim, Plaintiffs filed this suit on July 30, 2021, two years and twenty days after their alleged injury occurred. Dkt. 1-1 at 1. Before

2

removing the suit to this Court, Defendants raised the affirmative defense of limitations. See Dkt. 4-6 at 3; Dkt. 1 at 1.

Plaintiffs have moved for partial summary judgment on Defendants' limitations defense, asserting that their petition was timely as a matter of law. See Dkt. 4 at 1. Defendants have responded and cross-moved for summary judgment, or in the alternative, requested dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Dkt. 8.

Standard of Review

Summary judgment is warranted 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “A dispute is genuine ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Westfall v. Luna, 903 F.3d 534, 546 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A fact is material if the issue that it tends to resolve “could affect the outcome of the action.” Dyer v. Houston, 964 F.3d 374, 379-80 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010)).

When resolving a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the facts and any reasonable inferences “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” See Amerisure Ins. Co. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 611 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cross-motions must

3

be considered separately, as each movant bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Shaw Constructors v. ICF Kaiser Eng'rs, Inc., 395 F.3d 533, 538-39 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing 10a Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Fed. Prac. and Proc. § 2720 (3d ed. 1998)).

Analysis

I. Texas's COVID-19 Emergency Orders Did Not Categorically Suspend the Running of Limitations for Plaintiffs' Claims.

Plaintiffs agree that their claim accrued on the date of the accident- July 10, 2019. Dkt. 4 ¶ 2. The relevant statute of limitations thus expired two years later, on July 10, 2021. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. But Plaintiffs waited twenty days beyond that date to file this suit. Dkt. 1-1 at 1.

Instead, Plaintiffs maintain that the Texas Supreme Court's intervening Emergency Orders-particularly Emergency Order Eight-halted the running of all statutes of limitations for an interim, eighty-day period from March 13, 2020 to June 1, 2020. Dkt. 4 ¶¶ 32-37. Defendants, however, respond that the Emergency Orders merely extended filing deadlines that fall within a specified window, rather than tolling all limitations periods no matter when those periods expire. Dkt. 8 ¶¶ 2-7. After analyzing the Emergency Orders, including by applying canons of statutory interpretation, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' suit is time-barred, as a matter of law.

4

A. The Emergency Orders, by their terms, did not suspend the limitations period for Plaintiffs' claims.

The analysis turns on the Emergency Orders themselves, beginning with Emergency Order One, issued on March 13, 2020. 596 S.W.3d at 265. That initial Emergency Order did not extend the statute of limitations for any civil action. Instead, it stated that “[a]ll courts in Texas may extend the statute of limitations in any civil case for a stated period ending no later than 30 days after the Governor's state of disaster has been lifted.” Id. This pronouncement reflects the Court's view that its authority under Texas Government Code § 22.0035(b) permitted it to modify substantive time periods-like statutes of limitations-established by the Texas Legislature. Because Defendants do not question the Texas Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 22.035(b), the Court does not do so either.^[2]

5

Not until April 1, 2020 did the Texas Supreme Court undertake to alter filing deadlines-by issuing Emergency Order Eight. Misc. Docket No. 209051, 597 S.W.3d 844, 844 (Tex. 2020). Emergency Order Eight expressly amended paragraph 3 of Emergency Order One to state that “[a]ny...