Opinion
Civil Action No. H-04-4151.
March 29, 2006
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff correctly points out that the Court erred in holding, in its Memorandum and Order issued January 27, 2006 (Docket No. 150), that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant The Egle Group were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Accordingly, that portion of the January 27 order is hereby VACATED. Because the Court finds, however, that Plaintiff's claims against the Egle Group are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, it declines to vacate its grant of summary judgment in favor of The Egle Group. See Purchase Agreement at 24 ¶ 11.6 (exempting the indemnification provision from the two-year statute of limitations governing prompt notice of other claims but not from the four-year statute of limitations imposed by Texas law); TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE § 16.051 (Vernon 1985) (establishing the four-year limitations period).
Plaintiff argues that, even if the four-year limitations period applies, its claim against the Egle Group is not time-barred because the claim did not accrue until the conclusion of the Louisiana litigation. The Court has previously resolved this issue against Plaintiff ( see January 27, 2006 Memorandum and Order, Docket No. 150, at 5) and sees no reason to revisit that ruling today. Accordingly, because Plaintiff's claim against The Egle Group is time-barred, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.