TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00356-CV

Donald Baker, Appellant

v.

City of Austin, Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-14-002459, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Donald Baker seeks to appeal an order dismissing his case for want of 

prosecution, signed by the trial court on March 4, 2024. Because the record in this case reveals 

that the trial court later signed an order reinstating Baker’s case, we dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction.

The jurisdiction of this Court is limited to the review of final judgments and 

from certain interlocutory appeals made appealable by statute. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 

39 SW.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). An order granting a new trial or reinstating a case essentially 

“wipes the slate clean and starts over,” Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Syst, 160 S.W.3d 559, 

563 (Tex. 2005), and “deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal,” In re J.Z.P., 

No. 07-13-00445-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 10629, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 28, 2016, 

no pet.) (mem. op.) To be effective, an order reinstating a case must be signed by the trial court 
2

before it loses plenary jurisdiction. Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex.1980); Tex. R. 

Civ. P. 165a, 329(b). Therefore, whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the March 4 dismissal 

order turns on whether the trial court had plenary jurisdiction when it subsequently signed the 

order reinstating Baker’s case.1

If a case is dismissed for want of prosecution, a party seeking reinstatement must 

file a verified motion to reinstate within 30 days of the date on which the order of dismissal was 

signed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). In the absence of a timely filed motion to reinstate, the court’s 

plenary jurisdiction to grant a motion to reinstate expires thirty days after the signing of the order

of dismissal. Jarrell v. Bergdorf, 580 S.W.3d 463, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, 

no pet.) (citing McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990)); see Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a, 

329b(e). Conversely, when a motion to reinstate is timely filed, the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction 

extends until 30 days after such motion is overruled, either by signed order or by operation of law, 

whichever occurs first. In re Valliance Bank, 422 S.W.3d 722, 725 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, 

orig. proceeding) (“A [timely filed] verified motion to reinstate a case . . . extends the trial court’s 

plenary power in the same manner as a motion for new trial.”); see Tex R. Civ. P. 165a(3); id.

R. 329b(b). When a motion to reinstate is timely filed, it is overruled by operation of law 75 days 

after the dismissal order is signed. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). Because Baker timely filed his motion 

to reinstate on April 3, 2024, the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction expired on June 19, 2024.

1

 A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims

in the record. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 SW.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Although Baker was 

one of several plaintiffs who originally brought suit against the City of Austin, he was the only 

plaintiff remaining at the time the trial court signed its dismissal order. See City of Austin v. Baker, 

No. 03-16-00607-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 4531, at *1-4 (Tex. App.—Austin June 21, 2018, 

pet. denied) (mem. op.) (laying out procedural history).
3

The trial court acted within its plenary jurisdiction when it granted Baker’s motion 

and reinstated his case on May 21, 2024. Consequently, there is no final judgment over which we 

may exercise appellate jurisdiction. We dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: August 27, 2024