Nikhil Dhanani v. J & N Global Construction LLC and William Alberto Miranda A/K/A Alberto Miranda ( 2019 )

Opinion issued July 2, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-18-01051-CV
———————————
NIKHIL DHANANI, Appellant
V.
J & N GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION LLC AND WILLIAM ALBERTO
MIRANDA A/K/A ALBERTO MIRANDA, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1110032
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Nikhil Dhanani, challenges the trial court’s August 7, 2018 order
dismissing his suit against appellees, J & N Global Construction LLC and William
Alberto Miranda, also known as Alberto Miranda (collectively, “appellees”), for
breach of contract and fraud. In his sole issue, Dhanani contends that the trial court
erred in dismissing his suit for want of prosecution and failing to reinstate his case.
We reverse and remand.
Background
On May 9, 2018, Dhanani filed his petition, alleging that he entered into a
contract with appellees under which appellees agreed to remove the existing cooler
doors and install twelve new cooler doors at Dhanani’s convenience store. Dhanani
paid appellees $12,000 pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Appellees did not remove
and install the cooler doors as promised, stopped speaking to Dhanani, and did not
refund Dhanani’s money. Dhanani brought suit against appellees for breach of
contract and fraud.
On August 7, 2018, the trial court dismissed Dhanani’s suit for want of
prosecution. Dhanani timely filed a motion to reinstate his case, which was
overruled by operation of law.1 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3).
1
On November 29, 2018, the trial court signed an order granting Dhanani’s motion
to reinstate and ordering that his case be reinstated and returned to the trial court’s
active docket. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3). However, the trial court’s plenary power
expired on November 21, 2018. See id. (if motion for reinstatement not decided by
signed, written order within seventy-five days after judgment signed, motion
deemed overruled by operation of law; trial court has plenary power to reinstate case
until thirty days after timely motion to reinstate has been overruled, either by
written, signed order or operation of law, whichever occurs first); S. Main Bank v.
Wittig, 909 S.W.2d 243, 244 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ) (“A
verified motion to reinstate extends the trial court’s plenary power until 30 days
after such [a] timely filed motion[] [is] overruled, either by a written, signed order
or by operation of law.”). Because the trial court signed the order reinstating
2
Standard of Review
The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution rests within the sound
discretion of the trial court, and we will disturb this decision only if it amounts to a
clear abuse of discretion. MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75 (Tex. 1997); Fox
v. Wardy, 225 S.W.3d 198, 199–200 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. denied); see
also Franklin v. Sherman Indep. Sch. Dist., 53 S.W.3d 398, 401–02 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2001 pet. denied) (denial of motion to reinstate also reviewed for abuse of
discretion). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary and
unreasonable manner, without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer
v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985); Fox, 225
S.W.3d at 200.
If the order dismissing a suit does not specify a reason for the dismissal, we
will affirm if any proper ground supports the dismissal. See Herrera v. Rivera, 281
S.W.3d 1, 6 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no pet.); City of Hous. v. Thomas, 838
S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ). The appellant
bears the burden of presenting a record demonstrating that the trial court abused its
Dhanani’s case after its plenary power had expired, the order is void. See Walker v.
Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex. 1980); Wittig, 909 S.W.2d at 244 (“An order
of reinstatement entered after the expiration of the court’s plenary power is void
because the trial court is without jurisdiction.”).
3
discretion in dismissing his case. See Simon v. York Crane & Rigging Co., 739
S.W.2d 793, 795 (Tex. 1987); Herrera, 281 S.W.3d at 6.
Dismissal
In his sole issue, Dhanani argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his
suit for want of prosecution and failing to grant his motion to reinstate because the
trial court did not give him warning or notice of its intention to dismiss his suit for
want of prosecution.
The 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 court’s inherent
power. Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999).
Under Rule 165a, a trial court may dismiss a civil suit for want of prosecution when
a party seeking affirmative relief fails to appear for a hearing or trial of which the
party had notice or when the case is not disposed of within the time standards
proscribed by Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(1)–(2); Villarreal,
994 S.W.2d at 630. The trial court also has the inherent power to dismiss a civil suit
when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case with due diligence. See Villarreal, 994
S.W.2d at 630; Fox, 225 S.W.3d at 199. This authority stems from the trial court’s
power to maintain and control its docket. Maida v. Fire Ins. Exch., 990 S.W.2d 836,
839 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.).
4
A party must be provided with notice and an opportunity to be heard before a
trial court may dismiss a case for want of prosecution under either Rule 165a or its
inherent authority. TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(1); Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630; see also
Chisti v. Chisti, No. 01-13-00780-CV, 2015 WL 967715, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Mar. 3, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.); Gonzalez v. Pena, No.
04-16-00668-CV, 2017 WL 3270406, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 2, 2017,
no pet.) (mem. op.). As Rule 165a provides, in pertinent part:
Notice of the court’s intention to dismiss and the date and place of the
dismissal hearing shall be sent by the clerk to each attorney of record,
and to each party not represented by an attorney and whose address is
shown on the docket or in the papers on file, by posting same in the
United States Postal Service.
TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(1).
A trial court’s failure to provide adequate notice of its intent to dismiss
requires reversal because a party’s due process rights have been violated. Villarreal,
994 S.W.2d at 630–31; Gonzalez, 2017 WL 3270406, at *2. When an appellant has
the opportunity to move for reinstatement, he waives any due process rights if he
fails to move to reinstate his case. Wright v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice–
Institutional Div., 137 S.W.3d 693, 695 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no
pet.); see also Chisti, 2015 WL 967715, at *2.
Here, the record does not contain notification to Dhanani of the trial court’s
intention to dismiss his case under either Rule 165a or its inherent authority. See
5
Chisti, 2015 WL 967715, at *2. Instead, the only notice contained in the record is a
notice from August 7, 2018 stating that the trial court had signed a dismissal order
on that day. See id.
After receiving notice of the trial court’s dismissal order, Dhanani filed a
timely verified motion to reinstate within thirty days of the dismissal order and
requested a hearing. See id. In his motion to reinstate, Dhanani explained that he
did not receive notice from the trial court of its intention to dismiss his suit for want
of prosecution. See id. Dhanani’s motion to reinstate was overruled, without a
hearing, by operation of law on October 22, 2018.2 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3); see
also TEX. R. CIV. P. 4.
2
Although the trial court appears to have held a hearing on Dhanani’s motion to
reinstate on November 5, 2018, this hearing was held after the motion had been
overruled by operation of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3); see also TEX. R. CIV.
P. 4. This fact distinguishes the instant case from other cases where we have
explained that when a trial court holds a timely hearing on an appellant’s motion to
reinstate and considers the appellant’s arguments for reinstatement, any due process
concerns have been remedied. See, e.g., Templos v. Ford Motor Co., No.
01-12-00636-CV, 2013 WL 2948316, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June
11, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (trial court denied motion to reinstate on merits after
holding timely hearing; motion not overruled by operation of law prior to hearing);
Wilson v. Wilson, No. 01-06-00908-CV, 2010 WL 2545579, at *3, *8 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] June 24, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.); Chambers v. O’Quinn, 305
S.W.3d 141, 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009, pet. denied); Luna v. United
Parcel Serv., Inc., No. 01-02-00144-CV, 2003 WL 139592, at *1–3 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2003, pet. denied) (not designated by publication); see
also Jimenz v. Transwestern Prop. Co., 999 S.W.2d 125, 128–29 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).
6
Because Dhanani moved for reinstatement of his suit within thirty days of the
trial court’s dismissal in response to notification that the trial court had dismissed
his suit for want of prosecution and demonstrated a lack of notice of the trial court’s
intention to dismiss, he did not waive any argument that his due process rights were
violated. See Chisti, 2015 WL 967715, at *2; cf. Wright, 137 S.W.3d at 695.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing Dhanani’s suit for want
of prosecution without providing notice of its intention to dismiss, and Dhanani
preserved that error by filing his motion to reinstate, which was overruled by
operation of law. See Chisti, 2015 WL 967715, at *2.
We sustain Dhanani’s sole issue.
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court’s dismissal order and remand the case to the trial
court for reinstatement and further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Julie Countiss
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Landau, and Countiss.
7