Summary
The court addresses Navajo Express, Inc.'s motion to dismiss Visa Solutions, LLC's contract claims as barred by Texas's four-year statute of limitations. The court holds that Visa Solutions plausibly alleged a timely claim for certain cancellation fees, but failed to adequately allege that approval fees, weekly fees, or deductions from workers' paychecks accrued within the limitations period. The motion is granted in part without prejudice and denied in part, with leave to amend by January 9, 2026.
Holdings
- The cancellation-fee claims based on workers whose recruitment was cancelled before April 22, 2021 were barred by limitations, but the complaint plausibly alleged a timely cancellation-fee claim concerning the 41 workers in the final stage of the EB3 process and the possible cancellation of the entire order in May 2021.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege that any approval fees accrued after April 22, 2021, so the approval-fee claims were dismissed without prejudice.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege that weekly employment fees accrued within the limitations period, so the weekly-fee claims were dismissed without prejudice.
- The complaint did not plausibly allege that deductions from workers' paychecks accrued within the limitations period, so those claims were dismissed without prejudice.
- The equitable-estoppel claim was dismissed because, under Texas law, equitable estoppel is an affirmative defense rather than an independent cause of action.
Questions Presented
- Whether Texas's four-year statute of limitations barred Visa Solutions's breach-of-contract claims for cancellation fees.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that approval fees accrued within the limitations period.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that weekly employment fees accrued within the limitations period.
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that deductions from workers' paychecks accrued within the limitations period.
- Whether Visa Solutions's equitable-estoppel claim stated an independent cause of action under Texas law.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (12)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 556, 558, 570 (2007)(followed)
- Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Iyer v. Syndigo LLC, No. H-25-2782, 2025 WL 2645911, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2025)(followed)
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194, 202 (Tex. 2011)(followed)
- Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310, 314 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam)(followed)
- Stine v. Stewart, 80 S.W.3d 586, 592 (Tex. 2002)(followed)
- IDA Eng’g, Inc. v. PBK Architects, Inc., No. 15-cv-1418, 2016 WL 5791674, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 4, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)
- Spin Dr. Golf, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 296 S.W.3d 354, 362 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied)(followed)
- Lott v. Cougar Drilling Sols. USA, Inc., No. CV 22-1292, 2022 WL 3719976, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2022)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…