Jennifer Samaniego v. Alieda Silguero, 03-14-00795-CV

Plaintiff Jennifer Samaniego sued defendant Alieda Silguero for personal injuries from a May 2, 2011 rear-end collision; suit was filed May 2, 2013 (one day before limitations).
Original attorney suffered a stroke in Oct 2013 and ceased practicing; multiple lawyers declined to take the file.
Plaintiff repeatedly sought replacement counsel and referral services; new counsel (Colton) appeared April 22, 2014 and immediately requested a new citation.
Process server made early attempts in May 2013; after Colton’s appearance the court authorized substitute service June 6, 2014 and substitute service was effected June 16, 2014 — about six weeks after new counsel’s appearance.
Defendant moved for summary judgment solely arguing an eleven-month delay between filing and service established lack of due diligence as a matter of law; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was plaintiff diligent in attempting service such that service relates back to the filing date and defeats limitations?	Samaniego acted reasonably: immediate citation issuance at filing, multiple service attempts, diligent searches for new counsel after attorney’s stroke, and substitute service obtained within six weeks of new counsel’s appearance.	Eleven-month gap between filing and service (including long periods of inactivity) shows lack of due diligence as a matter of law.	At trial court: granted summary judgment for defendant (claims dismissed). On appeal: appellant argues this was error and that diligence is a fact issue for the factfinder.

Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2009) (framework: diligence is fact question; delay alone insufficient to show lack of diligence)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo and construing evidence favorably to nonmovant)
NETCO, Inc. v. Montemayor, 352 S.W.3d 733 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (affirmed diligence finding despite multi-month gaps when steps thereafter showed prompt efforts)
Auten v. D.J. Clark, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (delay caused by serious illness/death in lawyer’s office created fact issue on diligence)
Butler v. Ross, 836 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (example of unexplained inactivity supporting lack of diligence)