G.B.'s Self Serve, Inc. v. Elwood Barnes

G.B.'s Self Serve v. Barnes IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10-96-143-CV G.B.'S SELF SERVE, INC., ET AL., Appellants v. ELWOOD BARNES, Appellee From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court # 6-90 O P I N I O N This is an appeal from a trial court's order dismissing the appellant's counterclaim against the appellee for want of prosecution. We will affirm the trial court's order but remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to hold a hearing on the appellant's motion to reinstate. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 1983, the appellee, Elwood Barnes, purchased a convenience store/self-service gasoline station located in Corsicana from T.T. Ross. Barnes became the successor-in-interest to a lease agreement executed between Ross and the appellant, G.B.'s Self Serve, Inc., hereinafter G.B.'s, whereby Barnes would sell gasoline provided by G.B.'s for a percentage of the monthly gross profit of the gasoline sales. On January 3, 1990, Barnes sued G.B.'s alleging tortious conduct and breach of contract. G.B.'s filed its original answer on May 4, 1990, and its original counterclaim against Barnes on May 17, 1990. Discovery in the suit commenced in May 1990 and proceeded sporadically until May 1994 when the record indicates a cessation of all activity in the case. According to the record, the next activity occurred on January 22, 1996, when the trial court sent both parties a letter informing them the case was being placed on the court's dismissal docket. It appears from the record this letter instigated a flurry of activity in the case. On February 29, G.B.'s filed its second amended original answer, its first amended original counterclaim, a motion to consolidate the Barnes case with another suit , and a motion for summary judgment. Barnes filed a motion to non-suit G.B.'s on March 1. The trial court granted Barnes' motion to non-suit G.B.'s on March 5 and dismissed the entire case on March 11, citing lack of compliance with the Supreme Court time standards as the reason for dismissal. G.B.'s filed a motion to reinstate the case and for new trial on April 10. The court took no action on this motion, and it was overruled by operation of law. POINTS OF ERROR In three points of error, G.B.'s complains that the trial court erred by: (1) failing to hold a hearing on G.B.'s motion to reinstate; (2) dismissing the counterclaim without providing G.B.'s proper notification of the dismissal hearing; and (3) dismissing the counterclaim in violation of the court's local rules when a request for a trial setting was on file with the court. We will first address whether the trial court erred in dismissing G.B.'s counterclaim for want of prosecution because, if dismissal of the counterclaim was error, there will be no need for us to determine whether a hearing should have been held on G.B.'s motion to reinstate. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIM WITHOUT PROPER NOTIFICATION OF THE DISMISSAL HEARING? In its second point of error, G.B.'s complains the trial court erred in dismissing its counterclaim against Barnes for want of prosecution because G.B.'s was not provided proper notice of the dismissal hearing. The trial court sent the following letter to both parties on January 22, 1996: The above entitled and numbered cause was placed on the Civil Docket of this County on January 3, 1990. I am placing it on the dismissal docket for March 1, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. G.B.'s advances two arguments as to why this letter failed to provide proper notice of the court's intent to dismiss G.B.'s counterclaim against Barnes: (1) the notice did not satisfy the requirements of Texas Civil Procedure Rule 165a and (2) the notice did not satisfy due process requirements. We disagree. According to G.B.'s, Rule 165a requires a trial court to send each party notice of its intent to dismiss a case stating the date, time, and place of the dismissal hearing. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a. We agree with Barnes that G.B.'s has misconstrued when these requirements become applicable. Rule 165a(1) requires that notice of a court's intent to dismiss be sent when a party fails "to appear for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice." Id. Because the court, in its dismissal order, indicated that the case was being dismissed for failure to comply with the Supreme Court guidelines pursuant to Rule 165a(2), the requirements of Rule 165(a)(1) cannot be said to apply. Even assuming, arguendo, the requirements of Rule 165a(1) apply in the instant case, we fail to comprehend how G.B.'s can argue that the January 22 letter from the trial court did not apprise it that the cause referenced in the letter would be dismissed. The letter informed G.B.'s that the cause would be placed on the court's dismissal docket and that action on the case would be taken at 9:00 a.m. on March 1. Consequently, we find no merit in G.B.'s argument that the letter failed to state the date, time, and place of the dismissal hearing. G.B.'s also argues that it was not notified that a docket call of the court's dismissal docket occurred on March 1, 1996, at 9:00 a.m. Citing this court's opinion in Davis v. Laredo Diesel, Inc., G.B.'s maintains that, if the trial court dismissed G.B.'s counterclaim because G.B's failed to appear at the docket call, the court erred. 611 S.W.2d 943, 946-47 (Tex. Civ. App.—Waco 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We find no merit in this argument in that the court's dismissal order clearly stated that the case was being dismissed for failure to comply with the Supreme Court guidelines, not for G.B's failure to attend the March 1 docket call. Therefore, G.B's has failed to meet its burden on appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 50(d) (the appellant must supply the appellate court with a sufficient record showing error requiring reversal). Having concluded the notice sent to G.B.'s does not violate Rule 165a, we now address whether the notice complied with due process of law. Due process requires proper notification of a court's intention to dismiss a cause of action for want of prosecution. Donnell v. Spring Sports, Inc., 920 S.W.2d 378, 386 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied) (citing Hubert v. Illinois State Assistance Comm'n, 867 S.W.2d 160, 163 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) and Tramco Enter. v. Independent Am. Sav. Ass'n., 739 S.W.2d 944, 948 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1987, no writ)). In the present case, G.B.'s concedes that it received the letter from the trial court notifying it that the case was going to be placed on the dismissal docket. The record supports such admission. Furthermore, the record also shows that G.B.'s filed several documents with the court on the eve of dismissal. We conclude that, because G.B.'s had actual notice of the court's intent to place the case on the dismissal docket, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing G.B.'s counterclaim against Barnes. See State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex. 1984) (standard of review of a court's order dismissing a case for want of prosecution is whether the court abused its discretion); Lowe v. U.S. Shoe Corp., 849 S.W.2d 888, 891 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied) (actual notice of a court's intent to dismiss a case for want of prosection satisfies the requirements of due process). G.B.'s second point is overruled. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DISMISSING THE COUNTERCLAIM WHEN A REQUEST FOR A TRIAL SETTING WAS ON FILE WITH THE COURT? In its third point of error, G.B.'s complains the trial court violated its own local rule by dismissing G.B.'s counterclaim against Barnes when G.B.'s had filed a trial request with the court. G.B.'s argues the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing G.B.'s counterclaim because the court's local rules mandated that "[a]ll cases will be set for trial when requested and in the order requested" and because G.B.'s had filed a trial setting request with the court. The decision to dismiss a case for want of prosecution rests with the sound discretion of the trial court, and we, as an appellate court, will not disturb the court's decision absent an abuse of discretion. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d at 509. In determining whether a case should be dismissed for want of prosecution, the trial court is at liberty to consider the entire history of the case. Id. The fact that a party has made a request for a trial setting will not save a case from dismissal for want of prosecution; such is merely a factor for the trial court to consider in deciding to dismiss a case for want of prosecution. See Moore v. Armour & Co., Inc., 748 S.W.2d 327, 330-31 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1988, no writ). At the time the trial court dismissed the case on March 11, 1996, no activity had occurred in the case since May 1994, and the only activity up to that point had been intermittent discovery. Consequently, we cannot say, based on the languid history of this six-year-old case, that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing it for want of prosecution notwithstanding the fact that G.B.'s had notified the trial court that it was willing to proceed to trial in the near future. G.B's third point is overruled. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO HOLD A HEARING ON APPELLANT'S MOTION TO REINSTATE? Having determined the trial court did not err in dismissing G.B.'s counterclaim against Barnes because of improper notification of the court's intent to dismiss the case or because G.B.'s had filed a request for a trial setting with the court, we now address G.B.'s point as to whether the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing on G.B.'s motion to reinstate its counterclaim against Barnes. In its first point of error, G.B.'s argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to hold a hearing on G.B's motion because the language in Rule 165a(3) is mandatory. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). We agree. Rule 165a(3) provides that when a motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution is filed with the trial court the judge "shall set a hearing on the motion as soon as practicable." Id. The language of Rule 165a(3) does not allow the trial court discretion in whether to set a hearing on motions for reinstatement, but requires the trial court to set a hearing on all timely filed motions to reinstate. Thordson v. City of Houston, 815 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1991); Gulf Coast Inv. Corp. v. NASA 1 Business Ctr., 754 S.W.2d 152, 153 (Tex. 1988). Here, the trial court dismissed G.B.'s counterclaim on March 11, 1996. According to Rule 165a(3), G.B.'s then had 30 days to file a motion for reinstatement. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). G.B.'s filed its verified motion for reinstatement, along with a request for an oral hearing, on April 10, 1996, which was within the prescribed 30-day time limit. Without holding an oral hearing on G.B.'s motion, the trial court denied it. The trial court did not have the discretion to deny the motion without a hearing, and, therefore, erred in doing so. See Thordson, 815 S.W.2d at 550. G.B.'s first point of error is sustained, and this cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions to hold an oral hearing on G.B.'s motion to reinstate. BOBBY L. CUMMINGS Justice Before Chief Justice Davis, Justice Cummings, and Justice Vance Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part Opinion delivered and filed June 18, 1997 Do not publish