Background
Eddie Pugh sued Rise Church Abilene, Inc., Rise Discipleship, and Reynaldo Sandoval alleging abuse at a faith-based residential treatment facility. Pugh claimed he was subjected to forced labor, denial of prescribed medication, coercion, false imprisonment, assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress from 2019 onward. He worked as an unpaid or minimally-paid employee until June 2022, when he discovered through a public records request that Rise operated without proper state licensing. Pugh filed his original petition on September 11, 2025—over five years after his alleged injuries. Appellees moved to dismiss under Rule 91a, arguing all claims had no basis in law or fact. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed all causes of action. Pugh appealed pro se.
Pugh raised three issues: (1) the trial court erred by considering fact-based legal arguments at the Rule 91a hearing; (2) the trial court should not have ruled on Appellees’ motion to Pugh’s second amended petition when Pugh filed a third amended petition before the hearing; and (3) the trial court erred in dismissing claims on grounds of standing and limitations that depended on disputed facts.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The court held that the trial court properly permitted Appellees to present legal arguments explaining why Pugh’s factual allegations, as pleaded, would not entitle him to relief. Such arguments remain within the Rule 91a framework because they do not require extrinsic evidence—only application of legal standards to pleaded facts. The court found that the trial court properly ruled on Appellees’ original motion despite Pugh’s amended petition, since the challenged claims remained substantially identical between the second and third amended pleadings.
Regarding statute of limitations, the court affirmed dismissal. All of Pugh’s tort claims are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. Even accepting Pugh’s allegations as true, his injuries accrued no later than March 29, 2020 (end of residential program), or June 2022 (end of employment). His September 2025 filing fell outside the limitations period. Critically, Pugh’s December 2023 discovery that Rise lacked state licensing did not restart the clock—the discovery rule does not toll personal injury limitations based on later discovery of regulatory violations. Knowledge of the injury itself triggers the limitations period, not knowledge of the defendant’s unlawful status.
The court also affirmed dismissal on statutory standing grounds, holding that Pugh lacked authority to sue for licensing noncompliance because the governing statute reserved such enforcement to the Attorney General, HHSC, and county attorneys. However, the court reversed and remanded on constitutional standing issues regarding Pugh’s claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, finding these required more careful analysis of whether Pugh alleged particularized injury traceable to defendants and redressable by relief.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 91a motions operate within a pleadings-only framework, but this does not prohibit defendants’ counsel from presenting legal theories explaining why pleaded facts do not entitle plaintiff to relief.
- Discovery of a defendant’s regulatory noncompliance does not toll the statute of limitations for personal injury claims that accrued when the plaintiff suffered the underlying injury.
- Statutory standing—whether a plaintiff is authorized by law to enforce a particular statute—is a legal question amenable to Rule 91a dismissal based on pleadings alone.
- An unamended Rule 91a motion may remain viable when plaintiff amends complaint but does not materially alter the challenged claims.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies procedural and substantive boundaries for Rule 91a dismissals in Texas. It establishes that while Rule 91a requires a pleadings-only factual inquiry, courts may hear and credit legal arguments explaining why pleaded facts do not support relief—a necessary distinction that prevents plaintiffs from immunizing claims from legal scrutiny merely by asserting facts. The decision protects limitations periods from being circumvented through discovery of regulatory violations unrelated to the personal injury claim itself, a principle with broad application to institutional misconduct and abuse cases.
The ruling also addresses the intersection of religious liberty and civil liability, though the court expressly declined to decide whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine or First Amendment principles barred Pugh’s claims. The remand on constitutional standing suggests the court found insufficient clarity in the pleadings regarding Pugh’s concrete injury and whether any injunctive relief would redress it, leaving those issues for further proceedings.