COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DALMEX , LTD.,

 Appellant,

v.

APPAREL ENTERPRISES, INC. AND

SALVADOR DEL RIO,

 Appellees.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-13-00182-CV

Appeal from the

 243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2011-2481)

O P I N I O N

We decide in this case whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reinstate a 

case dismissed for want of prosecution when the plaintiff’s attorney failed to appear at the 

dismissal hearing. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion because the uncontroverted 

facts in the verified motion to reinstate established that the attorney’s failure to appear was not 

intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was due to accident or mistake.

BACKGROUND

On June 21, 2011, Appellant Dalmex, Ltd. filed suit against Apparel Enterprises, Inc. and 

Salvador Del Rio for breach of contract, breach of warranty, DTPA, and statutory theft, alleging 

that it had prepaid $56,000 to defendants for clothing and apparel, and defendants had failed to 

deliver the merchandise. On April 2, 2013, the trial court issued a notice of intent to dismiss the 
2

case for want of prosecution and set a dismissal hearing for April 18, 2013. The notice informed 

the parties that if they failed to appear at the dismissal hearing, “the case will be dismissed by the 

Court.” Counsel for Dalmex failed to appear at the hearing on April 18, and that same day the 

trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution. On May 17, 2013, Dalmex timely filed a 

properly verified motion to reinstate. In the motion, counsel for Dalmex established that he failed 

to attend the hearing because it was not placed on his calendar by mistake. In particular, counsel 

averred that although the notice had been delivered to his firm’s offices, the hearing was not 

calendared because (i) the secretary who calendars his appointments was out of the office that day 

and did not see the notice because it was not delivered to her desk pursuant to standard office 

procedure, and (ii) at the same time, his law firm was transitioning to a new computer system and

the attorney calendars were also being transitioned to new computer software, resulting in the 

hearing not being calendared in the confusion of the transition. Defendants did not file a response 

to Dalmex’s motion to reinstate or otherwise controvert the facts contained therein. The trial 

court did not set the motion for hearing, and the motion was overruled by operation of law 75 days 

after dismissal. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a(3) (if for any reason the motion to reinstate is not decided 

by signed written order within 75 days, it is deemed overruled by operation of law).

DISCUSSION

In a single issue, Dalmex contends the trial court abused its discretion in failing to reinstate 

its case because the uncontroverted evidence in its motion to reinstate demonstrated that its

counsel’s failure to appear at the dismissal hearing was not intentional or the result of conscious 

indifference but was due to accident or mistake.

1 We agree.

 

1 Appellees declined to file a responsive brief in this appeal.
3

Standard of Review

We review an order denying a motion to reinstate under an abuse of discretion standard. 

Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Constr. Co., Inc., 913 S.W.2d 467, 468 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam); 

Enriquez v. Livingston, 400 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex.App. – Austin 2013, pet. denied) (on 

rehearing). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily or unreasonably, without 

reference to guiding rules or principles.” Iliff v. Iliff, 339 S.W.3d 74, 78 (Tex. 2011); Enriquez, 

400 S.W.3d at 614. With regard to factual matters, an abuse of discretion occurs if the record 

establishes that the “trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision.” Walker v. 

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Reinstatement under Rule 165a

When a case is dismissed for want of prosecution, “[t]he court shall reinstate the case upon 

finding after a hearing that the failure of the party or his attorney [to appear] was not intentional or 

the result of conscious indifference but was due to an accident or mistake or that the failure has 

been otherwise reasonably explained.” Smith, 913 S.W.2d at 468 (quoting TEX.R.CIV.P.

165a(3)). The operative standard is essentially the same as that for setting aside a default judgment 

under Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939). Id. A 

failure to appear is intentional or due to conscious indifference within the meaning of the rule only 

when done without adequate justification. Id. Proof of such justification – accident, mistake or 

other reasonable explanation – negates the intent or conscious indifference for which 

reinstatement can be denied. Id. (citing Bank One, Texas, N.A. v. Moody, 830 S.W.2d 81, 84 

(Tex. 1992)). Conscious indifference means more than mere negligence. Id. (citing Ivy v. 

Carrell, 407 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Tex. 1966)). 
4

A trial court abuses its discretion in denying reinstatement following a dismissal for want 

of prosecution when an attorney’s explanation for a failure to appear is reasonable. Kenley v. 

Quintana Petroleum Corp., 931 S.W.2d 318, 321 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1996, writ denied) 

(citing Smith, 913 S.W.2d at 467-68). Some excuse, but not necessarily a good excuse, is enough 

to show lack of conscious indifference. Whitworth v. Blumenthal, 59 S.W.3d 393, 401 (Tex.App. 

– Dallas 2001, pet. dism’d by agr.). “An excuse need not be a good one to suffice.” Milestone 

Operating, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 388 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting 

Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Constr. Co., Inc., 186 S.W.3d 571, 576 (Tex. 2006)). For 

example, in Milestone, the uncontroverted testimony of the company’s registered agent that he 

simply did not recall being served with the lawsuit or turning over any lawsuit papers to 

company’s legal counsel demonstrated that the failure to answer was due to accident or mistake 

and not conscious indifference. Id.

Analysis

Dalmex’s attorney reasonably explained his failure to appear at the dismissal hearing by 

presenting uncontroverted evidence that the hearing was not placed on his calendar by mistake. 

Mistakes in internal office procedures and other circumstances that result in an event not being 

properly calendared demonstrate that the failure to appear was not intentional but due to accident 

or mistake. See, e.g., Director, State Employees Workers’ Comp. Div. v. Evans, 889 S.W.2d 266, 

269 (Tex. 1994) (attorney’s predecessor misdated the trial date on his calendar and conveyed the 

wrong information to the current attorney when she replaced him, causing the current attorney to 

believe the case was set for a later date; thus the current attorney’s failure to appear for trial was 

not intentional, but was due to accident or mistake). Further, because defendants did not 
5

controvert the sworn facts presented in Dalmex’s motion to reinstate, we look only to those facts to 

determine if the trial court abused its discretion. See id. at 268 (citing Strackbein v. Prewitt, 671 

S.W.2d 37, 38-39 (Tex. 1984)). When factual allegations in the movant’s affidavit are not 

controverted, the trial court must grant the motion if the facts alleged negate intentional or 

consciously indifferent conduct. Id. at 269. Rule 165a mandates that the trial court “shall 

reinstate the case” when the failure of the party or his attorney to attend was not intentional or the 

result of conscious indifference but was due to accident or mistake. TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a(3). 

Because the uncontroverted, sworn facts in Dalmex’s motion to reinstate constituted adequate 

justification for counsel’s failure to appear at the dismissal hearing, Rule 165a bound the trial court 

to reach only one decision to reinstate the case. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in 

allowing Dalmex’s motion to reinstate to be overruled by operation of law.

CONCLUSION

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to reinstate Dalmex’s case because the 

uncontroverted evidence in Dalmex’s motion to reinstate demonstrated that its counsel’s failure to 

appear at the dismissal hearing was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was 

due to accident or mistake. Because the trial court abused its discretion, we sustain Dalmex’s 

issue and reverse and remand the case to be reinstated on the trial docket.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

January 7, 2015

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.