Gail Ashley v. Doris D. Hawkins

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.063 does not toll the limitations period when an absent defendant remains amenable to service under the general long-arm statute and has sufficient contacts with Texas for personal jurisdiction. The Court overruled Vaughn v. Deitz and concluded that the plaintiff failed as a matter of law to exercise due diligence in serving the defendant after filing suit. The Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s summary judgment for the defendant.

Holdings

1. A defendant is considered present in Texas for purposes of section 16.063 when the defendant is amenable to service under the general long-arm statute and has contacts with Texas sufficient to support personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, section 16.063 did not toll the limitations period for Ashley.
2. Hawkins failed to raise a fact issue on due diligence because the nearly eight-month gap between service attempts was unexplained and other available methods of service were not pursued. Summary judgment for Ashley was therefore proper.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.063 tolls the limitations period when an out-of-state defendant is amenable to service under Texas's general long-arm statute and has sufficient contacts with Texas for personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether Hawkins exercised due diligence in attempting to serve Ashley after filing suit within the limitations period.

Disposition

reversed