law-motion-to-reinstate after DWOP dismissal
MOTION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF DISMISSED CASE
(AFTER DISMISSAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION)
Under civil procedure rule 165(a)(3) when a verified motion to reinstate has been filed, an oral hearing is
required. Thordson v. City of Houston, 815 S.W.2d 550, 550 (Tex. 1991) (per curiam). Failure to hold such
a hearing is an abuse of discretion and requires reversal. Id; see Resurgence v. Foster, 2009 WL 1875568,
at *2 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 1, 2009, no pet. )(mem. op.); Reed v. City of Dallas, 774 S.W.2d 384, 385 (Tex.
App.-Dallas, writ denied); NASA 1 Bus. Ctr. v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 747 S.W.2d 36, 38-39 (Tex. App.-Houston
[14tht Dist.] ), writ denied sub. nom. Gulf Coast Inv. Corp. v. NASA 1 Bus. Ctr., 754 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. 1988)
(per curiam).
Standard of Review We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under an abuse of discretion standard.
See Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999); Vann v. Brown, 244 S.W.3d
612, 614 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet). We will only disturb a trial court's ruling if the trial court acted “in
an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without reference to any guiding principles.” Downer v. Aquamarine
Operators Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).
PETITIONS DENIED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
08-0027
CHERYL SUE WALLINGFORD v. TRINITY UNIVERSAL INSURANCE COMPANY; from Travis County; 7th
district (07-06-00142-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 10-23-07, pet. denied May 2008)(DWOP dismissal,
reinstatement but no order signed, plenary power)
08-0023
LINDA JOHNSON AND STEPHEN WAYNE JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GUARDIANS OF KEASHIA
MCLINN, A MINOR v. ROBERT THIGPEN, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A THIGPEN CATTLE COMPANY AND
THIGPEN CATTLE COMPANY, AN UNIDENTIFIED COMPANY; from Falls County; 10th district (10-06-00174-
CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 11-21-07, pet. April 2008 )(motion to reinstate, dismissal, lack of due diligence)
Because the trial court could properly dismiss the Johnson's case for failure of diligent prosecution or for
failure to comply with the Rule 165a(2) time standards or under its inherent authority, we do not find that the
trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate the case under Rule 165a(3). Having overruled
Johnson’s two issues, we affirm the trial court's dismissal.
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE