Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 21-0797 ══════════ Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc., Petitioners, v. El Pistolón II, Ltd., Respondent ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas ═══════════════════════════════════════ Argued March 23, 2023 JUSTICE HUDDLE delivered the opinion of the Court. The plaintiff in this case sued for defective design and development of a commercial property. After lengthy appeals, the suit was dismissed for failure to file a certificate of merit that satisfied the requirements of Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 150.002. The question we must answer is whether the relevant limitations periods expired while the suit was on appeal, barring the plaintiff from refiling the suit with a new certificate of merit. The court of appeals answered no, holding the running of limitations was equitably tolled under a legal-impediment rule it divined from Hughes v. Mahaney & Higgins, 821 S.W.2d 154 (Tex. 1991). We hold there was no tolling during the appeal of the earlier-filed suit. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the trial court’s judgment. I. Background El Pistolón II, Ltd. hired Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc. “to perform architectural work” related to a property development in McAllen in late 2005 or early 2006. According to El Pistolón, Levinson1 negligently designed and developed the property. El Pistolón sued Levinson in June 2010 for breach of contract and negligence. But it failed to include a certificate of merit as required by Section 150.002 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 150.002(a) (requiring a plaintiff to file “with the complaint” a certificate of merit prepared by a third-party licensed or registered professional in an action “for damages arising out of the provision of professional services” by such a professional). A few months later, in response to Levinson’s motion to dismiss, El Pistolón nonsuited its claims and refiled the suit with a certificate of merit. Levinson again moved to dismiss, this time challenging the certificate’s substance. See id. § 150.002(e) (requiring dismissal of a complaint for the failure to file a compliant certificate of merit). The trial court denied Levinson’s motion to dismiss, but Levinson ultimately won on appeal. 1 “Levinson” refers to both Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc. 2 The court of appeals held the certificate of merit was deficient as to El Pistolón’s breach of contract claim but complied with Section 150.002 with respect to its negligence claim. Levinson Alcoser Assocs., L.P. v. El Pistolon II, Ltd., 500 S.W.3d 431, 438 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2015), rev’d on other grounds, 513 S.W.3d 487, 495 (Tex. 2017). Our Court granted Levinson’s petition for review, and we held the certificate of merit also failed to satisfy the statute’s requirements as to El Pistolón’s negligence claim. Levinson Alcoser Assocs., L.P. v. El Pistolón II, Ltd., 513 S.W.3d 487, 495 (Tex. 2017). We rejected El Pistolón’s argument that our opinion clarified …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals