law-DWOP dismissal | reinstatement | motion to retain | reinstate |
DWOP Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
09-0619
MICHAEL JOSEPH LESSARD, DOROTHY ELAINE LESSARD, MONICA JEAN LESSARD AND JEANNE MARIA
LESSARD v. VELSICOL CHEMICAL CORP.; from Live Oak County; 13th district (13-00-00113-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 04-23-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(DWOP and denial of motion to reinstate affirmed)
We have already determined that the record does not support a finding that the trial court abused its discretion
by dismissing the case. Moreover, the record supports an implied finding that the Lessards did not prosecute
this case with diligence. See Dueitt, 180 S.W.3d at 741; see also Luna v. UPS, Inc., No. 01-02-00144-CV, 2003
Tex. App. LEXIS 465, at **8-9 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2003, pet. denied) (concluding that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's claims for failing to exercise diligence in prosecuting
his claims and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion to reinstate because
of the dismissal). Therefore, the Lessards have failed to meet their burden to bring forth a record supporting
reinstatement. We overrule the Lessards' first issue. Conclusion: We affirm the trial court's dismissal of the
Lessards' claims for want of prosecution and its denial of the Lessards' motion to reinstate.
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. denied April 2008 )(motion to reinstate, DWOP 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.