Mata, et al v. State Farm Lloyds, et al, No. 06-40604 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 27, 2006 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 0640442, 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.