P.O. Box 200842
Austin, Texas 78720
(512) 619-8639
Fax (512) 372-1645

Oprima aquí para información en Español "Seguro que hablamos Español” [email protected]

Practice Areas

Our office enjoys handling a wide variety of legal matters including:

  • Commercial / Business litigation (including breach of contract).
  • Mediation services.
  • Complex multi-party litigation.
  • Business and Real Estate Disputes.
  • Construction litigation.
  • Landlord / Tenant disputes.
  • Business torts including fraud and misrepresentation.
  • Personal Injury Litigation.
  • Appellate brief writing and appellate argument.
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution.
  • Medical Malpractice (prosecution and defense).
  • Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.
  • Negligence.
  • Breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Administrative Law (including representing health care professionals before boards and the State Office of Administrative Hearings “SOAH”).
  • Criminal law defense (federal court).
  • Ad valorem (property) tax disputes.
  • Insurance / Disability disputes and litigation.
  • Real estate title examination and related issues.
  • Real estate contracts and leases.
  • Foreclosures.
  • Will preparation.
  • Creditor's rights.

Failure to serve defendant within two years bars recovery

As many readers know certain types of lawsuits must be brought with a certain amount of time or they are barred by limitations.  However in addition to timely filing a lawsuit, the defendant must also be served with the lawsuit within a reasonable period of time or an applicable statute of limitations may prevent recovery for the plaintiff.  In the May 19, 2010 decision in the case of El Paso Independent School District v. Alspini, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff Alspini had timely filed his civil employment discrimination lawsuit within two years (of having submitted his complaint to the Civil Rights Division of the Texas Workforce Commission) however his attorney did not serve the defendant with the lawsuit because of on-going settlement discussions with the defendant (which were unsuccessful).  The court noted that when a plaintiff files a lawsuit within the permitted limitations period, but fails to serve the defendant within that period, the date of service “may” relate back to the date of filing “if” the plaintiff exercised diligence in effecting service and a plaintiff has a duty to exercise diligence, until the defendant is actually served.  The court found that the plaintiff had failed to exercise diligence in serving the defendant and thus concluded that the plaintiff’s suit was barred.

Background image courtesy of Akumar