Hortencia MATA; Rogelio Mata, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE FARM LLOYDS; State Farm Lloyds Inc., DefendantsAppellees, 206 F. App'x 403

PER CURIAM: The Matas appeal the district court’s order of dismissal as to Defendant State Farm Lloyds Inc. and the district court’s entry of

summary judgment for Defendant State Farm Lloyds. This case is one of several related cases, all of which the district court dismissed on the same basis: that the plaintiffs had no cause of action against the insurance company’s attorney-in-fact and that the statute of limitations had run by the time the plaintiffs served the insurance company with process. As to the order of dismissal of the attorney-in-fact, we affirm for the reasons stated in our disposition of Martinez v. State Farm Lloyds, 204 Fed.Appx. 435. As to the entry of

summary judgment, we likewise affirm because the Matas’ original petition, filed in state court on January 31, 2003, estops them from denying that their claims had already accrued — and therefore the limitation period began to run — at the time they filed their lawsuit. The Matas did not serve State Farm Lloyds until August 2005, after the statute of limitations had run. See id. AFFIRMED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not he published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.