Mata v. State Farm Lloyds

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
November 27, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
_______________________
No. 06-40604
Summary Calendar
_______________________
HORTENCIA MATA; ROGELIO MATA,
Plaintiffs–Appellants,
versus
STATE FARM LLOYDS; STATE FARM LLOYDS INC.,
Defendants–Appellees.
__________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(USDC No. 7:05–CV–392–RHH)
__________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The Matas appeal the district court’s order of dismissal as to Defendant State Farm
Lloyds Inc. and the district court’s entry of summary judgment for Defendant State Farm
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
1
Lloyds. This case is one of several related cases, all of which the district court dismissed on
the same basis: that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the insurance company’s
attorney-in-fact and that the statute of limitations had run by the time the plaintiffs served
the insurance company with process. As to the order of dismissal of the attorney-in-fact, we
affirm for the reasons stated in our disposition of Martinez v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 06-
40442, 2006 WL 3147505. As to the entry of summary judgment, we likewise affirm
because the Matas’ original petition, filed in state court on January 31, 2003, estops them
from denying that their claims had already accrued–and therefore the limitation period began
to run–at the time they filed their lawsuit. The Matas did not serve State Farm Lloyds until
August 2005, after the statute of limitations had run. See id.AFFIRMED.
2