before he filed suit. For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the district court’s order granting summary judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. * Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. 1 . Jones v. Comm’r, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir.2003). 2 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). 3 . Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 16.003(a) (West Supp.2011). 4 . Porterfield v. Ethicon, Inc., 183 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir.1999). 5 . Haussecker v. Childs, 935 S.W.2d 930, 934 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996), aff'd, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.1998). 6 . Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453, 455 (Tex.1996). 7 . See, e.g., id. at 457 (<HOLDING>). 8 . Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Norwood, 58
holding that the exclusionary rule generally does not apply to immigration proceedings holding that procedural bar rule does not apply to ineffectiveness claims holding that the discovery rule categorically does not apply to misappropriationoftradesecrets claims because in most cases trade secret misappropriation generally is capable of detection within the time allotted holding that the discovery rule does not apply to  bill of review claims to set aside probate judgments holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law