Motion to Retain Case on Docket in Texas

What Is a Motion to Retain Case on Docket?

Background

“A plaintiff has a duty to ‘prosecut[e] the suit to a conclusion with reasonable diligence,’ failing which a trial court may dismiss for want of prosecution.” (Conner, infra, 458 S.W.3d at 534 quoting Callahan v. Staples (1942) 161 S.W.2d 489, 491.) “A trial court may dismiss a suit for want of prosecution either under its inherent power or pursuant to Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.” (In re Crawford (2018) 560 S.W.3d 357 at 364 [quoting Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 534.]) Under Rule 165a(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissal is proper when a case is “not disposed of within the time standards promulgated by the Supreme Court” under the Administrative Rules. (Id., quoting Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 534 [quoting Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(2).])

Under Rule 165a, there are two grounds for dismissal for want of prosecution. One is when a “party seeking affirmative relief [fails] to appear for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice.” (Tex. R. Civ. P 165a(1).) In such cases, “[a] court shall dismiss ... unless there is good cause for the case to be maintained on the docket.” (Id.) The other is when a case is “not disposed of within [the] time standards promulgated by the Supreme Court.” (Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(2).) And while Rule 165a(2) does not refer to Rule 165a(1)'s procedural requirements, including notice and a hearing, neither does it suggest a basis for deviating from those procedures. (In re Conner (2015) 458 S.W.3d 532, 535.)

How to Structure the Motion

Trial courts are generally granted considerable discretion when it comes to managing their dockets. Such discretion, however, is not absolute. It has long been the case that “a delay of an unreasonable duration ..., if not sufficiently explained, will raise a conclusive presumption of abandonment of the plaintiff's suit.” (In re Conner (2015) 458 S.W.3d 532, 534 quoting Callahan, supra, 161 S.W.2d at 491.) This presumption justifies the dismissal of a suit under either a court's inherent authority or Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

A motion to retain a case on the docket is filed in response to notice of impending dismissal under Rule 165a. (Pollefeyt v. Tex. Health Res. (2020) No. 02-19-00260-CV, at *10 [“Because the trial court's notice specifically referenced Rule 165a, it adequately informed Pollefeyt of the possibility of dismissal for her failure to appear. Thus, the initial dismissal was proper under Rule 165a(1).])

By specifically referencing Rule 165a in its dismissal letter, a trial court indicates its intent to dismiss under either Rule 165a(1) or (2). (See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1), (2); Johnson-Snodgrass v. KTAO, Inc. (2002) 75 S.W.3d 84, 88-90; Lopez v. Harding (2001) 68 S.W.3d 78, 79-80; see also Patterson v. Herb Easley Motors, Inc. (2005) No. 2-04-351-CV, 2005 WL 2044671, at *1, *3 (mem. op.); see also Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630-31.)

A trial court may dismiss a suit under Rule 165a if:

a party seeking affirmative relief fails to appear for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice or
the case is not disposed of within the time standards promulgated by the Texas Supreme Court under its administrative rules.

Thus, a motion to retain a case on the docket includes explanations as to why the above-state rules should be excepted, and the case allowed to remain on the docked. (Pollefeyt, supra, id.)

The notice of dismissal requires the plaintiff to appear and to bear the “burden to produce evidence . . . showing good cause for its delay in prosecuting the case.” (See In re Crawford (2018) 560 S.W.3d 357 at 364.) Under such notice, the plaintiff is required to appear in person and show good cause for maintaining the case on the docket. (Id.) When plaintiff makes no such showing, as in Crawford, and there are no findings made regarding plaintiff's “reasonable explanation for the delay,” and there is only a period of inactivity before the notice of dismissal that is not sufficiently explained, the court is correct in dismissing for want of prosecution. (Nichols v. Sedalco Constr. Servs. (2007) 228 S.W.3d 341, 343; see also In re Levetz (2009) No. 06-19-00086-CV, at *11-12.)

The Court’s Decision

At the appellate level, “[w]hen the order does not specify a particular reason for the dismissal, the court will affirm only if a proper ground supports the dismissal. (Pollefeyt v. Tex. Health Res. (2020) No. 02-19-00260-CV, at *10 n.8 citing Fox v. Wardy (2005) 225 S.W.3d 198, 200.)

The Appellate Court reviews a trial court's decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution under a clear abuse of discretion standard. (Parker v. Cain (2016) 505 S.W.3d 119, 121 citing Enriquez v. Livingston (2013) 400 S.W.3d 610, 614 citing MacGregor v. Rich (1997) 941 S.W.2d 74, 75.) A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules and principles, or if its action is arbitrary or unreasonable under the circumstances of the particular case. (Manning v. North (2002) 82 S.W.3d 706, 709.)