(quoting Tate, 119 S.W.3d at 380); Erven v. Springer, No. 02-16-00350-CV, 2017 WL 2471096, at *3 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same).
(quoting Tate, 119 S.W.3d at 380); Erven v. Springer, No. 02-16-00350-CV, 2017 WL 2471096, at *3 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)
"The duty to exercise diligence is a continuous one, extending from the date suit is filed until service is obtained." Perez v. Thomas, No. 02-18-00253-CV, 2019 WL 2432155, at *2 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 6, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.); Erven v. Springer, No. 02-16-00350-CV, 2017 WL 2471096, at *3 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
We hold that these four periods of delay-one of six weeks, another of over six weeks, yet another of six months, and the last of three months, none of them adequately explained-together show Appellants' lack of diligence as a matter of law. See Erven v.Springer, No. 02-16-00350-CV, 2017 WL 2471096, at *4 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth June 8, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that unexplained gaps of six weeks, three months, and three months, taken together, showed lack of diligence as a matter of law).