The Texas Court of Appeals has granted a writ of mandamus in the case of In Re DG & GG Investments, LLC v. the State of Texas, affecting the ability of a plaintiff to pursue personal injury claims against a business entity. This decision, filed under docket number 13-26-00680-CV on October 29, 2026, has significant implications for how courts handle claims that may be barred by the statute of limitations.

The case centers around a personal injury lawsuit filed by Adrian Cantu De Leon against multiple defendants, including DG & GG Investments, LLC. The court's ruling is crucial for both the relator, DG & GG Investments, and the plaintiff, Cantu, as it addresses the legal standards surrounding the timeliness of claims and the procedural rules for dismissing cases.

Background

Adrian Cantu De Leon filed his original petition on June 21, 2024, claiming personal injuries from a slip and fall incident that occurred on October 1, 2022, at a laundromat. Initially, Cantu did not name DG & GG Investments as a defendant but included several other entities associated with the laundromat. On October 28, 2025, he amended his petition to include DG & GG Investments, which prompted the relator to file a motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations.

DG & GG Investments argued that Cantu's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Texas. They filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, asserting that Cantu's claims had no legal basis because he did not include them within the required timeframe. The trial court initially set a hearing for the motion but ultimately denied it on June 25, 2026, leading to the current appeal.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals ruled in favor of DG & GG Investments, granting the petition for writ of mandamus. The court found that the trial court had abused its discretion by denying the motion to dismiss. The opinion stated, "Cantu’s first amended petition does not show that his claims against relator are not time-barred even though the limitations period had run." This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the statute of limitations in personal injury cases.

The court emphasized that Cantu did not plead any facts that would toll the statute of limitations and that his claims were legally barred. The justices involved in the ruling included Justices Silva, Peña, and West, with Justice Peña authoring the memorandum opinion.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future personal injury claims in Texas. It reinforces the principle that plaintiffs must act within the specified time limits to pursue legal action. The court's decision clarifies that adding new defendants to a lawsuit does not automatically relate back to the original filing unless specific legal exceptions apply.

Moreover, the ruling may influence how lower courts handle similar motions to dismiss in the future. It sets a precedent that emphasizes the necessity for plaintiffs to be diligent in naming all relevant parties within the statute of limitations period. This decision could lead to more rigorous scrutiny of amended petitions and the claims they contain.

What's Next

The trial court is now directed to vacate its previous order denying the motion to dismiss and to proceed in accordance with the appellate court's ruling. Cantu may have limited options for appeal, but the court's decision to grant mandamus indicates that further litigation on this issue may be limited. The outcome of this case may affect how similar claims are approached in the future.