Juan Soto Perez, Jose Ulloa-Sialos, and Keyri Menjivar Individually and as Next Friend of Kendric Menjivar v. Jared Efurd, 01-15-00963-CV

In 2012 Perez (and others) sued Jared Efurd in Harris County for injuries from a Houston auto accident; the suit was filed before the two‑year limitations period expired.
Service on Efurd was not completed until December 2014, more than three months after the limitations period expired.
Efurd answered asserting limitations as an affirmative defense and later moved for traditional summary judgment that the suit was barred because service occurred after limitations.
Perez filed a memorandum opposing summary judgment listing efforts to serve Efurd but submitted no affidavits or other competent evidence in the trial court to verify those efforts.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Efurd; Perez attached a process‑server affidavit to his appellate brief, but it was not part of the summary‑judgment record.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding Perez failed to adduce evidence showing due diligence in service and thus could not avoid the limitations bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Perez exercised due diligence in serving Efurd so that service could relate back to filing	Perez asserted multiple attempts over eight months and attached a process‑server affidavit on appeal showing efforts	Efurd argued service occurred after limitations and Perez submitted no admissible evidence in the trial court to explain the delay	Court held Perez failed to present competent summary‑judgment evidence of diligence; unexplained delay bars relation back and summary judgment was proper

Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (summary‑judgment burden when affirmative defenses asserted)
Proulx v. Wells, 235 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2007) (shift of burdens and plaintiff must explain service delay to avoid limitations)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (viewing evidence and inferences for traditional summary judgment)
Butler v. Ross, 836 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (unexplained multi‑month delay negates due diligence)
Cohen v. Landry’s Inc., 442 S.W.3d 818 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (characterizing summary‑judgment motions by substance)