Reported / Citable
Background
Glen Pace was piloting an aircraft from the Dallas area to Hattiesburg, Mississippi when his plane crashed, causing multiple injuries he attributed to failures in the aircraft’s parachute and other safety systems. He sued Cirrus Design and related defendants — manufacturers of the aircraft, engine, and safety components — across a series of lawsuits spanning several courts.
Pace’s first suit (Pace I) was filed in Mississippi state court, removed to federal court, and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. While his appeal of that dismissal was pending, he filed a second suit (Pace II) in a different Mississippi county, adding five new defendants; it was likewise removed and dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit ultimately affirmed both dismissals. Pace then filed the present action (Pace III) in the Eastern District of Texas.
The Texas district court dismissed Pace III as time-barred. It held that the Texas Savings Statute (TSS), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Remedies Code § 16.064, tolled the limitations period during Pace I but not during Pace II, reasoning that the statute’s tolling benefit did not extend to a second successive suit dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding that the TSS can toll the limitations period for more than one prior suit dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Sanders v. Boeing Co., 680 S.W.3d 340 (Tex. 2023), the court explained that § 16.064(a)(1) applies “whenever the previous court dismisses an action for lack of jurisdiction” — language that does not limit the statute’s application to a single prior dismissal. Because both Pace I and Pace II were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, both qualify for TSS tolling.
The court also addressed defendants’ alternative argument for affirmance: that Pace had acted with “intentional disregard of proper jurisdiction” when filing Pace II while the Pace I appeal was still pending, which would defeat TSS protection under § 16.064(b). The court declined to rule on that question because it is a factual one and the district court had made no findings of fact on it. Without such findings, the appellate court said it would be “simply guessing” at the factual basis for any conclusion. The case was remanded for the district court to make those findings in the first instance.
Key Takeaways
- The Texas Savings Statute tolls the limitations period for each successive suit dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, not just the first — a “trilogy of suits” (or more) can each receive tolling credit under § 16.064.
- A defendant seeking to defeat TSS tolling under § 16.064(b) must show the plaintiff filed with intentional disregard of proper jurisdiction; once raised, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to disprove it, but the question is one of fact for the trial court.
- Filing a second suit while an appeal of the first’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is still pending is a potentially significant factor in the intentional-disregard analysis — but the Fifth Circuit left that determination to the district court on remand.
- Appellate courts will vacate and remand when a legally relevant factual question was not addressed below, rather than resolve it themselves.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies an important and previously unsettled question under Texas limitations law: plaintiffs who file successive suits that are each dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction are not automatically cut off from TSS tolling after the first dismissal. For aviation litigants, product liability plaintiffs, and others who sometimes struggle to identify the correct forum for multi-defendant cases, the ruling preserves meaningful access to courts even after procedural setbacks in multiple jurisdictions.
At the same time, the remand leaves open a significant gateway for defendants. If a district court finds on remand that Pace knowingly re-filed in a court that lacked jurisdiction — particularly after a first dismissal on that same ground — TSS protection could be denied entirely. How courts apply the “intentional disregard” standard to situations where a prior dismissal is under appeal, rather than final, will be a key question to watch as this case proceeds.