Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C. (Dallas, TX) Litigation & Trial Team Obtain Complete Summary Judgement Ruling in Dallas County

On August 29, 2023, Lead Trial Attorney Greg K. Winslett (pictured above -left) and Senior Litigation Attorney Michael W. Huffstutler (pictured above – right) obtained a complete Summary Judgment ruling in Dallas County District court on behalf of their client who had been sued by plaintiffs, who alleged approximately $1 Million dollars in economic, non-economic, and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs e-filed suit on the evening the statute of limitation was set to run.  Their Original Petition was predicated on numerous, conflicting theories of liability, including: Negligence; Gross Negligence; Negligence per se; Negligent Activity; Negligent Hiring, Training, and Supervision; and Premises Liability and Premises Defect.  Defendant answered in-part, by specifically and affirmatively asserting the defense of Statute of Limitations.

The resolution of this case boiled down to a number of subtle and significant procedural details that the Plaintiffs had failed to adhere to.  Litigation & Trial Team Winslett/Huffstutler argued to the Court that as a result of Plaintiffs unexplained decision not to file their Original Petition until the evening of the last day within the statute of limitation (despite having readily available alternatives),  that as a matter of law, continuous and bona fide diligence had been negated.

 Moreover, Winslett and Huffstutler argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ offered no legally sufficient excuse or explanation for the 129-day delay past the statute in effectuating service of process on their client.  Taken together, Defendant provided the Court with an objective representation of the timeline of events, the numerous and unexplained delays, and concerning gaps found within the 129 days it took Plaintiffs to serve Defendant past limitation.

While Plaintiffs’ response was voluminous, and at first-glance provided the intended illusion of substance, Defendant’s Litigation & Trial Team was steadfast in their analysis and argument to the Court, pointing out that upon deeper review, the Court would see that the purported ‘evidence’ proffered by Plaintiffs was nothing more than a house of cards devoid of substance – tantamount to offering no-evidence at all.

Following the conclusion of oral arguments before the Court, the Court agreed with the Defendant’s position, finding that as a result of Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s unexplained failure to exercise continuous and bona fide diligence in timely filing their suit and effecting valid service of process on Defendant  before the statute of limitation, each and every original and derivative cause of action asserted by Plaintiffs was time-barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitation.

The Dallas District Court swiftly granted the relief requested by Defendant, ordering that Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed in their entirety, effective immediately.