Hall v. TJX Companies

── Hall v. TJX Companies ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: June 01, 2026 Category: Civil Rights Case: 25-10930 Document: 41-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 1, 2026 No. 25-10930 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ Ericka Hall, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus TJX Companies, Incorporated, doing business as TJ Maxx, doing business as Marshalls, doing business as Marmaxx Operating Corporation; Zurich American Insurance Company, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:24-CV-1862 ______________________________ Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Stephen A. Higginson, Circuit Judge:* Plaintiff–Appellant Ericka Hall, proceeding pro se, sued TJX Companies, Inc. (“TJX”) and Zurich American Insurance Co. (“Zurich”) for injuries she alleges she suffered from a fall at a TJ Maxx store. The case was referred to a magistrate judge who ultimately recommended dismissing _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10930 Document: 41-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 No. 25-10930 Hall’s claims without prejudice. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations, but then, in the final judgment, dismissed Hall’s claims with prejudice. We VACATE and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Hall sued both TJX, an entity related to TJ Maxx, and TJ Maxx’s insurer, Zurich American Insurance Co., to recover for her injuries. First, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Hall’s claims against TJX without prejudice because Hall failed to file proof of service for that defendant, despite several prior extensions and warnings. The magistrate judge explicitly opted for dismissal without prejudice—as opposed to dismissal with prejudice—because it found “no reason to believe that Hall’s failure to prosecute or comply with court orders [was] the result of some improper motive.” The district court adopted the findings and recommendation in full. Hall moved for relief from judgment, arguing that dismissal was improper. The magistrate judge recommended that the motion be denied, and the district court again adopted the findings and recommendation in full. Separately, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of Hall’s claims against Zurich, also without prejudice. Unlike TJX, which never responded in the case, Zurich moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion on Rule 12(b)(1) grounds because Hall lacked standing to sue Zurich under Texas’s “no direct action” rule. Again, the magistrate judge explained that dismissal should be without prejudice because “a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits.” Alternatively, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Hall’s claims against Zurich under Rule 12(b)(6) because they were “legally foreclosed under the