Supreme Court

23-0388 - Sanders v. The Boeing Co.

Sanders v. The Boeing Company

Case number: 23-0388
Legal category: Procedure—Pretrial
Subtype: Statute of Limitations
Set for oral argument: September 12, 2023

Case Summary

This certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concerns the interpretation of Section 16.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which tolls limitations where a prior action is dismissed “because of lack of jurisdiction” and refiled in a court of “proper jurisdiction” within sixty days after the date the dismissal “becomes final.”

Lee Marvin Sanders and Matthew Sodrok sustained injuries in connection with their employment as flight attendants by United Airlines. The flight attendants sued the Boeing Company and other defendants in federal district court, which later dismissed their suit for failure to adequately plead diversity jurisdiction—despite the fact that the parties agree that the flight attendants could have invoked the district court’s jurisdiction if they had included the proper allegations. The flight attendants filed this suit shortly after the Fifth Circuit affirmed, but the district court dismissed their claims as barred by the statute of limitations.

On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the flight attendants argued that Section 16.064 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code tolled the applicable statute of limitations while they pursued their prior suit because that case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and they filed this suit less than sixty days after the Fifth Circuit affirmed the prior judgment and denied their petition for rehearing en banc.

The Fifth Circuit certified two questions to the Supreme Court: (1) Does Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 16.064 apply to this lawsuit where the flight attendants could have invoked the prior district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction with proper pleadings?; and (2) Did the flight attendants file this lawsuit within sixty days of when the prior judgment became “final” for purposes of Section 16.064? The Supreme Court accepted these questions.

Case summaries are created by the Court's staff attorneys and law clerks and do not constitute the Court’s official descriptions or statements. Readers are encouraged to review the Court’s official opinions for specifics regarding each case. Links to the full case documents are included above.