Two Alternative Legal Bases for DWOP Dismissal

Dallas Court of Appeals, in another one of a series of recent appeals from debt collection cases that were dismissed by the county court, discusses the two sources of authority for a judge to dismiss a lawsuit for want of prosecution in Texas (TRCP 165a and the court's inherent power), and finds that neither supports dismissal of the case at bar.

FROM THE OPINION:

A trial court's authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution stems from two sources: (1) Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a, and (2) the trial court's inherent power. Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999).

A trial court may dismiss a case under rule 165a on “failure of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice” or when a case is “not disposed of within the time standards promulgated” by the supreme court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1), (2). See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6 (requiring judges to ensure, so far as reasonably possible, that civil nonjury cases are brought to trial or final disposition within twelve months from appearance date, and that civil jury cases are brought to trial or final disposition within eighteen months from appearance date).

In addition, the common law vests the trial court with the inherent power to dismiss independently of the rules of procedure when a plaintiff fails to prosecute its case with due diligence. Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630; WMC Mortgage Corp. v. Starkey, 200 S.W.3d 749, 752 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied).

Lack of diligence need not amount to abandonment for a case to be properly dismissed. WMC Mortgage Corp., 200 S.W.3d at 752. In determining whether a party has demonstrated a lack of diligence in prosecuting a claim, a trial court may consider the entire history of the case, including the length of time the case was on file, the extent of activity in the case, whether a trial setting was requested, and the existence of reasonable excuses for delay. Id. No single factor is dispositive. Id.B.

Discussion

1. Dismissal under Rule 165(a)

The dismissal lists as a reason for dismissal “failure to take action after notice of intent to dismiss for want of prosecution,” in accordance with its “rule 165a letter.” However, a trial court may dismiss a case under rule 165a on “failure of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice” or when a case is “not disposed of within the time standards promulgated” by the supreme court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1), (2). Although the dismissal order provides “failure to appear for a hearing or trial of which notice was had” as a reason for dismissal, the trial court did not check this reason for dismissal. In addition, the record shows that Oliphant filed suit on August 15, 2007, and moved for default judgment on October 18, 2007. The trial court dismissed it on November 30, 2007. This case was not pending beyond the time standards set by the supreme court. We conclude the record does not support dismissal pursuant to rule of civil procedure 165(a). See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1), (2).

2. Dismissal under Inherent Power

In its October 19, 2007 Order to Amend Petition, the trial court ordered Oliphant to amend its petition for several specific reasons and cautioned Oliphant that failure to amend would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. The trial court's dismissal letters advised Oliphant that failure to move for and have heard a summary judgment or prove up a default judgment before specific dates would result in dismissal.

Because we have concluded Oliphant proved up a default judgment on its breach of contract claim, none of these grounds will support dismissal for want of prosecution for failure to amend as ordered under the trial court's inherent power.

Further, we conclude the record does not show a lack of diligence by Oliphant in prosecuting its claim. See Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630; WMC Mortgage Corp., 200 S.W.3d at 752.

Accordingly, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing this case. See Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241-42; Vann, 244 S.W.3d at 614. We resolve Oliphant's issue in its favor to this extent. We need not discuss the trial court's alternative summary judgment condition for dismissal.

SOURCE: Oliphant Financial, LLC v. Galvaniz, No. 05-07-01730-CV (Tex.App.- Dallas Oct. 26, 2009) (debt collector's pleadings, motion for default judgment and attached evidence - including deemed admissions - sufficient to support default judgment; denial of default judgment and dismissal for want of prosecution reversed and case remanded for further proceedings)

Standard of Review Applied by Appellate Court in Reviewing Propriety of Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Order Entered by the Trial Court

CHALLENGING A DWOP ORDER:

Standard of Review on Appeal, as stated by the Dallas Court of Appeals:

We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under an abuse of discretion standard. See Vann v. Brown, 244 S.W.3d 612, 614 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). See also Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985) (trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to any guiding rules or principles).

Oliphant Financial, LLC v. Galvaniz,
No. 05-07-01730-CV (Tex.App.- Dallas Oct. 26, 2009)

15-day Extension to File Notice of Appeal Not Automatic

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure (TRAP) allow for a notice of appeal to be filed fifteen (15) days late, but not without a reasonable explanation being set forth in a proper motion. What qualifies as reasonable, and what doesn't? The Dallas Court of Appeals yesterday answered that question, at least in part. Its opinion dismissing the attempted - untimely - appeal provides a reminder that the 15 extra days cannot be taken for granted. Specifically, the court held, that waiting for a ruling on a motion for new trial was not a reasonable explanation for delay in filing the notice of appeal, particularly when the motion had already been overruled by operation of law.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Court has before it appellant's September 22, 2009 motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal and appellee's response in opposition to the motion. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the extension motion and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court's judgment was signed on May 20, 2009 and appellant filed a timely motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice of appeal was due by August 18, 2009. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). The notice of appeal was filed on September 2, 2009, within the fifteen-day period provided by rule 26.3. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3(a). Therefore, we directed appellant to file a motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal setting forth a reasonable explanation for the need of the extension. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 26.3(b); Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997).

In his extension motion, appellant asserted, “Plaintiff's motion for new trial was timely filed on June 19, 2009. The hear [sic] date of motion for new trial was set on Sept. 2nd, 2009; Therefore whether to appeal only could be determined after the hearing of motion for new trial.”

Appellee responded that appellant did not provide a reasonable explanation because the motion for new trial had already been overruled by operation of law on August 3, 2009, and appellant did not file his notice of appeal until the 105th day after the trial court's judgment was signed.

We agree that appellant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the need of the extension.

The Texas Supreme Court has defined “reasonable explanation” to mean “'any plausible statement of circumstance indicating that failure to file within the [required] period was not deliberated or intentional, but was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance.” Garcia v. Kastner Farms, Inc., 774 S.W.2d 668, 669 (Tex. 1989) (internal citation omitted). “Any conduct short of deliberate or intentional noncompliance qualifies as inadvertence, mistake, or mischance. . . .” Id. at 670.

Texas courts have rejected as unreasonable explanations that show a defendant's conscious or strategic decision to wait to file a notice of appeal, reasoning the explanations did not show inadvertence, mistake, or mischance. See, e.g., Hykonnen v. Baker Hughes Bus. Support Servs., 93 S.W.3d 562, 563-64 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (holding unreasonable appellant's explanation he failed to file notice of appeal until he found attorney to represent him on appeal at little or no cost); Rodman v. State, 47 S.W.3d 545, 548-49 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.) (holding unreasonable explanation that when State disclosed, after expiration of time for filing notice of appeal, its intent to indict appellant for other crimes, appellant decided to appeal to preserve eligibility for probation in upcoming trials); Kidd v. Paxton, 1 S.W.3d 309, 310-13 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (op. on reh'g) (holding unreasonable explanations counsel miscalculated due date for filing notice of appeal when he failed to file notice of appeal on miscalculated date and counsel's preoccupation with other cases without detailed explanation of complexities and relevant deadlines of other cases); Weik v. Second Baptist Church of Houston, 988 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (holding unreasonable appellant's explanation that his lawyer told him if he appealed case while trial court still had authority to reinstate case, trial court would reinstate case and appellant would have difficult time prosecuting claim because of trial court's displeasure with appellant).

This Court has likewise rejected as unreasonable explanations that showed an appellant's decision to wait to file a notice of appeal was not due to inadvertence, mistake, or mischance, but was due to a conscious decision to ignore the appellate timetable in favor of the trial court's jurisdictional timetable. See Crossland v. Crossland, No. 05-06-00228-CV, 2006 WL 925032 (Tex. App.-Dallas Apr. 11, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam).

Because appellant's explanation in this case shows he was aware of the deadline for filing his notice of appeal, but consciously ignored the deadline in favor of waiting for a ruling on his motion for new trial, we conclude appellant has not provided a reasonable explanation for the need of the extension.

We deny his motion to extend time to file his notice of appeal.

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Zhao, Yumin v. Lone Star Engine Installation Center, Inc., No. 05-09-01055-CV (Tex.App.- Dallas Oct. 6, 2009)
Docket Sheet
Case Type: CONTRACT

Hearing on Motion to Reinstate Can Cure Error in Notice or Render it Harmless

What is the effect of filing - and obtaining a hearing on - a motion to reinstate a case terminated by dismissal for want of prosecution? A recent appellate decision from the First Court of Appeals in Houston in a high-profile case supports the proposition that such a hearing provides a substitute for proper notice of intent to dismiss and an opportunity to object and be heard on the issue. Since the hearing on the motion to reinstate/for new trial after the DWOP allows the aggrieved party an opportunity to show why the case should remain on the court's docket, any due process violation would be cured at that point, or rendered harmless error, which does not provide grounds for reversal on appeal.

THE RELEVANT SECTION OF THE OPINION IS REPRODUCED BELOW, FOLLOWED BY THE CASE CITE

Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Appellants argue in their second point of error that the trial court erred in dismissing their suit forwant of prosecution and request that the trial court’s dismissal be reversed.

The trial court signed an order on July 21, 2004, dismissing appellants’ suit for want of prosecution because no final arbitration hearing had commenced by July 9, 2004, as ordered.

As an initial matter, appellants claim that the trial court’s order threatening dismissal unless arbitration was commenced by July9, 2004 was not a notice of trial or “dispositive” setting and that the court could not dismiss until givingadditional notice of potential dismissal with a hearing on a date certain. Appellants further claim that theywere confused as to precisely what actions had to be taken to avoid dismissal. Finally, appellants claim that they received no notice of the trial court’s order informing them that “unless a final hearing on Plaintiff’sclaims has commenced before the American Arbitration Association on or before July 9, 2004, Plaintiff’sclaims shall be DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION.”

Even assuming that appellants received no notice of the trial court’s intention to dismiss their suit for want of prosecution, we hold that any such error was harmless because appellants were given an opportunity to be heard on their motion to reinstate, filed after the dismissal for want of prosecution. See Franklin v. Sherman Indep. Sch. Dist., 53 S.W.3d 398, 403 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

Appellants filed a “Motion for Reinstatement and/or New Trial,” which contained arguments identical to those presented on appeal. After a full hearing on August 20, 2004, the trial court denied appellants’ motion. If a party receives the same hearing before the trial court that it would have had before the dismissal was signed, no harmful error is committed. Id. at 403.

Jimenez v. Transwestern Property Company, 999 S.W.2d125, 129 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.), also shows that any error did not harm the appellants. In that case, the appellant was not given notice of the trial court’s intent to dismiss for want of prosecution but was given a hearing on the motion to reinstate. Id. at 129. The court held that the hearing on appellant’s motion to reinstate “satisfied the due process rights applicable to the dismissal of his case.”Id. Therefore, assuming without deciding that the trial court erred in dismissing appellants’ case, we hold thatsuch error was harmless. Id. We overrule appellants’ second point of error.

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Chambers vs. O'Quinn (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009)(Taft) (opinion on remand from the Texas Supreme Court) (mostly addressing arbitration issues)

Motion to Reinstate Must Be Verified (Sworn)

Reminder from the Fifth Court of Appeals: Motion to Reinstate dwopped case that is not verified (sworn to) does not extend appellate deadline. Consequences of noncompliance are dire: Untimely attempted appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction (DWOJ):

PER CURIAM OPINION

Appellant Lakeith Amir-Sharif appeals the trial court's judgment dismissing the case for want of prosecution and the trial court's failure to grant appellant's motion to reinstate.After reviewing the record, we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal.

Amir-Sharif v. Hawkins, No. 05-08-01388-CV (Tex.App.- Dallas, Oct. 1, 2009)

By letter dated August 31, 2009, we notified appellant of this Court's concern regarding its jurisdiction over this appeal and directed appellant to file a letter brief regarding the jurisdictional question by September 10, 2009 and directed appellee to file any response to appellant's letter brief by September 17, 2009, at which time the Court would resolve the jurisdictional question. Appellant filed a brief on September 21, 2009.

We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The law is well settled and we therefore issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 47.1.Pursuant to rule of civil procedure 165a and the court's inherent power, on August 7, 2008 the trial court signed an order of dismissal for want of prosecution for appellant's “having failed to take actions heretofore specified by the Court within the time period prescribed, and for failing to announce for trial scheduled for August 4, 2008.”

On August 21, 2008, appellant filed an unverified “Motion to Reinstate Complaint.” Appellant filed his notice of appeal on October 13, 2008, more than thirty days after the August 7, 2008 order of dismissal. Because his motion to reinstate was not verified, the notice of appeal was due 30 days after the dismissal order was signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3) (motion to reinstate shall be verified by the movant or his attorney); Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

An unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the trial court's plenary power or the deadline for appealing the dismissal of the case. McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Macarangal v. Andrews, 838 S.W.2d 632, 633 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding); Sierra Club v. Tex. Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 188 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Tex. App.-Austin 2005, no pet.).We conclude appellant's notice of appeal was untimely.

We therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Footnote 1 We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1.

LINDA THOMASCHIEF JUSTICE


Footnote 1 We note a prior appeal of this appellant was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on the identical basis. See Amir-Sharif v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., No. 05-07-01254-CV, 2009 WL 104777, at *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Jan. 16, 2009, no pet.).
-------------------
File Date[10/01/2009]