Case Explained: Glenn Larkins; Rhonda Larkins Plaintiffs— v. S.D.P. Manufacturing, Incorporated; CTE, L.L.C., doing business as Custom Truck One Source; CTE, L.L.C., doing business as Hi-Tech Crane/CTE, Custom Truck & Equipment, LLC and Utility One Source; CTEC Incorporated; Custom Truck & Equipment, L.L.C., doing business as Custom Truck One Source; Custom Truck One Source, Incorporated, formerly known as NESCO Holdings II Incorporated and NESCO L.L.C. DBA NESCO Rentals NESCO Specialty Rentals, NESCO Sales and Rentals; CTEC Holding Company, L.L.C.; CTEC Holdings, L.L.C Defendants—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and summary judgment, holding that the Plaintiffs’ efforts to serve process outside the statute of limitations created a genuine issue of material fact regarding diligence under Texas law. The court applied the standard that a plaintiff must exercise “ordinary diligence,” not the “highest degree of diligence,” to excuse service delays after filing. Under this standard, a delay is only fatal as a matter of law if the plaintiff’s explanation for the lapse is “patently unreasonable.” The court reasoned that while Plaintiffs experienced delays in forwarding citations to a process server and following up on service attempts, these periods were not patently unreasonable given the specific circumstances. The record indicated that the paralegal was distracted by a courthouse fire and conflicting trial deadlines in an unrelated Louisiana case, which necessitated immediate attention. Furthermore, the court found it reasonable for Plaintiffs to allow a process server time to attempt service on multiple similarly named corporate entities and to take time to conduct an address audit after the server expressed confusion regarding defendant identities. The court emphasized that Texas law does not impose strict liability on plaintiffs for every delay by a third-party process server, provided the plaintiff maintains a bona fide intention to serve. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Because the record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of diligence, the dismissal and summary judgment based on the statute of limitations are vacated, allowing the Plaintiffs’ personal injury claims to proceed to trial where a factfinder may determine if the service efforts were adequate. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.