### NUM BER 13-00- 0011 3-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
M ICHA EL JOSE PH LESSA RD, D OR OT H Y ELA IN E L ES SA R D , M ONI CA JEA N LESSA RD, A ND JEA NN IE M A RIE LE SSA RD , A pp ellan ts,
v . VEL SICO L CH EM ICA L COR PORA TION , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 43rd D istrict Co urt of L iv e Oa k C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld eza n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza A p p e l l a n t s , M i c h a e l J o s e p h L e s s a rd , D o rothy El ain e Les sard, M oni ca Jean Less ard, and Jeann ie Ma ri e Less ard, appeal from the tr ial cour t’ s g ra nti ng of a moti on to di smi ss forT he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat t he f ol l owi ng p ar t i es wer e on ce par t oft hi s app eal as appel l ees: Sav age 1 Pest C ont r ol ; Lesl i e Sav age Bowl es, i ndi v i dual l y and as t he e xecut orof t he e s t ate ofJam es S. Sav age, de ce as ed ; Cha r y l e M

. M er r i t t , Sa m m eyAl l i so n M er r i t t ; t he u nkn ow n he i r s of J am es S. Sa v ag e; J am es S. Sava ge d / b/ a Sav age Pest C ont r ol ; R ober t D

. N oguer i a, i ndi v i dual l y and as execut orof t he e st at e of

Jam es S. Sava ge ( col l ect i v el y t he “ Sava ge p ar t i es” )

. I n f act , t he Sav age par t i es j oi nt l y f i l ed wi t h Vel si col t he m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or want of pr osecut i on com pl ai ned about on appea l

. T hi s C our t , on June 8, 200 0, i ssued an o r der d is m is s in g th e a p p e a l a s to th e S a v a g e p a r tie s b e c a u s e th e S a v a g e p a r tie s a n d th e L e s s a r d s h a d s e tt le d th e ir c l a i m s
. A s a re s u l t, th i s C o u rt s e v e re d th e L e s s a rd s ’ c l a i m s a s to th e S a v a g e p a rti e s i n to a s e p a ra te a p p e l l a te cause num ber

— 13- 00- 349- C V— and di sm i ssed t he appea l

. T he L essar ds’ r em ai ni ng i ssues a gai nst Vel si col r em ai ne d do cket ed u nd ert he c ur r en t a pp el l at e ca us e nu m be r — 13
- 00
- 11 3- C V. 2 w ant o f pros ecut ion i n fav or of appel lee , Ve ls ic o l Che mic al Cor porati on ( “V els ic ol” ). By 1 tw o i ss ues, the Less ards arg ue th at t he tr ial co urt abuse d it s dis creti on: (1 ) in dis mis si ng thei r cl aims for w ant of prosec uti on; and (2 ) in re fusing to re ins tate thei r cl aims pursuant to Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 165a( 3)

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 5a ( 3)

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND This di sput e i nv olv es damag es ar is ing from t he chemi cal cont aminat ion of sev eral residen ces in Live Oak Cou nty, Texas. Orig inally, the disput e involv ed n um erou s parties; howev er, mo st of the partie s have settled their claims, lea v ing only the Le ssards, Ve lsicol, and F ru itof the L oom as par ti es. The Less ards filed t h e ir or ig ina l peti ti on on Dec ember 31, 1990, all eg ing , among
o th e r th in gs, th a tV e l s i c o l a n d Fru itof th e Lo o m w e re ne glige n t in de sign in g, manufactur ing , and mar ket ing Gol d Crest C- 100 Emul si fiabl e C oncen trate, the c hemic al
w hic h al leg edl y

contami nated the L ess ards’ resi dence

. The Less ards’ l aw sui t w as one of three l aw sui ts ag ain st the s ame set of de fendants—tr ial cour t caus e numbers 7 202- C (fil ed b y t h e E p i s c o p a l C h u rc h C o r p o ra t i o n o f W e s t Te x a s ) , 7 2 0 5
- C ( fi l e d b y t h e R ey nol ds family ), an d 7 2 1 4
- C ( fi l e d b y t h e L e s s a rd fa mi l y )

. T h e t r i a l c o u rtc o n s o l i d a t e d t h e t hr ee lawsui ts on D ecember

16, 1991. On J une 24, 19 9 3 , the t ri al cour t ordered th at al l further proceed ing s a nd th e tr ialB y s ig n in g th e F e b r u a r y 2 8 , 1 9 9 7 a g r e e d o r d e r o fr e f e r r a l, th e tr ia l c o u r t o s te n s ib ly d e n ie d th e J u ly 2 28, 199 4 m ot i on f ort he appoi nt m ent ofa v i si t i ng j udge f i l ed by V el si col , F r ui t of t he L oom , and t he Sav age par t i es. 3 of the matt er

w ere to be c onducted b efore a v is it ing j udg e. The tr ial co urt furt her ordered the p arti es to “ ag re e upon the ident ity of a v is it ing judg e w it hin ten day s from the date of thi s Or der

. ” T h e p a rt i e s n e v e r a g re e d o n w h i c h v i s i t i n g j u d g e w o u l d c o n d u c tfu rt h er proceed ing s. On A pr il 22, 1994, all of the p arti es ag re ed to a j oin t moti on to co nti nue t he upco m ing M ay

23, 1994 t ri al setti ng , w hic h the tr ial co urt g ra nted. Ve ls ic ol, F ru itof the Loo m, and the Sa v age parties f iled a mo tion for the a ppo intm entof a v isiting judge on July 28, 1 994, re q uest ing thatthe tr ial co urt app oin t a v is it ing jud g e si nce the Less ards and t he oth er plaintif

fs had rejected each of

the pro pose d v isiting judges na me d on the de fend ant s’ li st w it hout offer ing a l is t of thei r ow n. The record does not reflectthatthe tr ial co urt r ule d on th is moti on. On F ebr uar

y 28, 1997, the tr ial co urt ent ered an ag re ed order of re ferral appoi nti ng Ste v en W . Fieldcam p as the med iator for the claim s. Af ter me diatio n in 199 7, Ve lsicol, 2 Fruit of the Lo om , and the ot her de fend ant s settled w ith the plaintiffs i n t ri a l court cause numbers 7 202- C and 720 5- C, l eav ing onl y the Less ards’ cl aims unresol v ed. On M arch 14, 1 999, the L ess ards filed a moti on w it h the tri al cour t req uest ing the tr ial co u rtto seta do ck et c ontrol conference by tel ephone for th e pur pose of sche dul ing a tr ial date

. The tr ial co urt s et t he doc ketco ntrol conference for Ma rc h 23, 1999, and s ent noti ce to the par

ti es. It is not cl ear from the re cord before us w hen the new tr ial setti ng w as
sc hedul ed. Nev erthel ess , on Oct ober 19, 1999, Vel si col and the S av ag e parti es filed a j oin t4

moti on to di smi ss the Less ards’ cl aims for w ant of prosec uti on. In thi s fili ng , Vel si col and the S av ag e par

ti es arg ued t hat t hey

had prov ide d the Less ards w it h l is ts of v is it ing j udg es
on numerous o c c a s i o n s a n d t h a tt h e L e s s a rd s fa i l e d t o d o a n yt h i n g
. V e l s i c o l a n d t he Sa v ag e pa rti es a l s o al l eg ed th at th e c as e ha d be en o ut s ta nd i ng for n i ne y ea rs a t th e ti me of f il ing and that the L ess ards w ere “ the o nly outs tandi ng cl aims despit e medi ati on atte mp ts and num erou s lette rs sent to the Plaint if fs on be half

of the Defend ant s to obt ain
a v is it ing j udg e.” On N ovemb er 12, 199 9, the Lessa rds f iled a respo nse to the joint m otion to dism iss for w antof

prosecu tion. The Lessa rds alleged tha t a ju ry tri al of their claims w ould only tak e a w eek and req uest ed a tr ial se tti ng for t he first av ail abl e w eek after Febr uar y 2000. Cou nsel for t he Les sards noted that he w as re ce n tl y e m plo y ed by the law fir m of Spag nol etti & A ss oci ates for t he s peci fic p ur pose of p ro se cu ti ng thi s matter , and he subs eq uentl y

propose d a n ew

l is t of v is it ing jud g es and, alt er nati v ely , sug g est ed that the tr ial co urt s ele ct a v is it ing j udg e i f Vels ic ol and t he Sav ag e par ti es obj e ct e d t o hi s l is t of
v is it ing j udg es. N ow here i n the respon se did co unsel for the Less ards ex pla in w hy the case h ad b een delayed for over nine y ears. On N ov ember

17, 1999, the t ri al cour t c onducted a hear ing on V els ic ol and t he Sav ag e par

ti es’ j oin t motio n to dis mis s. At the h ear ing , c ounse l for th e Sav ag e par ti es noted that thi s matter

w oul d take more than one w eek to try and all eg ed that t he Les sards had “ basi cal ly

sa t on thei r hands for nin e y ears in thi s cas e.” Cou nsel for Vel si col st ated that dis cov er

y i n the case had not been updated sinc e 1992 and t hat h e w as not a fforded the o ppor

tuni ty to finis h a d eposi ti on of the Less ards’ ex per t w it ness
. Vel si col ’s co unsel als o referenc ed a re centcl aim broug ht by the L e ss a rds for

damag es ass oci ated w it h5

“painf ul, sen sitiv e po ly neu ropa thy” and t hatt he Lessa rds h ad notparticipat ed in disco v ery
re g ardin g thatcl aim. I n ex pla ini ng w hy the cas e had tak en s o l ong to prosec ute, couns el fo r th e Le ss a rd s n o te d th e fo llo wing: [C ou ns el for th e Le s s ards ]: All r i g ht

. I ha v e f iled a respo nse in this ca s e
. As I said, Your Hono r, I orig inally re present ed th e Les sards. I hav e been outof this c a s e f o r five y ears. I’v e just b e e n reh ire d . My f irs t p rio rit y is to go forw ard w it h thi s c ase.

. . . . [C ounse l for th e Les sards] : I le ft th e la w f ir m, Y our H onor , and w ent int o pract ic e el sew here. A n d i n fact, I tried to retire from the practice of law f irst of the year a n d foun d ou t I just could n’t do th a t

. A n d s o M r
. S p a g n o l e t t i a sk ed me t o c om e ba c ka nd c l ear up s om e cas es inc lud ing thi s o ne.

. . . . [Coun sel for the Lessa rds]: Now tha t I’m on the case, I’ll see all thatis done an d I w il l do i t ex pedi ti ousl y j ustas soon as it c a n po ssibly be do ne. And I’ll see that it ’s done. T o c or re ct w hat C ounse l sai d, or ig ina ll y I re present ed th e Les sards w hen I w as w ith the Klebe rg Law Firm in Cor pus Chr ist i. I hav e notbeen associa t e d with this case. I turne d this cas e ov er

to Mr . Spag nol etti about four or fiv e y ears ag o. I hav en’ t bee n as soc iat ed w ith the case in the last three y ears. I’ m b a c kh e re
. I k n o w t he Lessa rds person ally

and I orig inally re present ed th em and I wo uld —j ustto hav e the ir

day i n c our t or ge t this thi ng conclu ded for them . And th at’s all I ask, Y our H ono r, and I w il l dil ig entl y do w ha te v er

thi s Co ur

t s ug g es ts o r

w an ts me to do w it h re g ards [si c] to resol v ing i t, and6 that’ ll be d one. I promis e Y our H onor that.

. . . . THE COU RT: Theynev er did mov e the cases w hen y ou left. [ C o u n s e l fo r t h e L e s s a rd s ] : I know

. I in te n d to m o ve it now , Y our Hono r. The tr ial co urt s ubseq uentl y di smi ss ed th e Les sards’ cl aims for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. On D ece mb e r

1 6 , 1 9 9 9 , t he Les sards filed v ar iou s p ost -j udg ment moti ons, i ncl udi ng
a v er ified moti on to rein sta te, arg uin g thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n di smi ss ing the c ase and t hat r ule 165a of t he Tex as Rul es of C iv il Procedu re mandate d rein sta tement. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 165 a. I nclud ed w ith the ir v erif ied m otion to reinsta te w as an af f idavit
e xec u te d by Fra n cis I. Sp a gno le tt i in w h ich he st a te d th e fo llo wing:

My f irm has continu ously represe nte d Plaint if fs [the Lessa rds] since obtai nin g thi s c ase. The c ase w as m e d ia ted in 1997, but n o s ettl ement coul d be re ached

. Al thoug h i t i s tr ue that t he c ase has now been on fil e for n in e yea rs (1 9 9 0 -1 9 9 9 ), th e re are se vera l re a so n s tha t e xpla in th is p a ss a ge of time: First, a s is custo ma ry

a t my f irm, I assigned th is case to asso ciates, w ho th en prepare the case as nec ess ar y for t ri al, i ncl udi ng propoundi ng and re spond ing to dis cov er y , obt ain ing medi cal records, and cons ult ing w it h ex per t w it ness es. O v er

the y ears t hat t his ca se has been on fil e, t he han dling associate chan ged on several occasion s. Th is fact ha s resulted in a n un in te n d e d de la y in h a n d lin g. Seco nd, t h is c ase is a c onsol ida ti on of three s eparate l aw sui ts w it h separate set s of plai nti ffs ( the R ey nol ds, the Less ard[s ], and t he Epi sc opal Church), a n d i nclud es sep arate defend ant s w hich are se para tely re present ed. The cl aims of the R ey nol ds were final ly se ttl ed after

l eng thy proceed ing s .
. . . On D ecember

20, 1999, the L ess ards filed their or ig ina l noti ce of appeal , w hic h they lat er s u p ple mented o n M arch 13, 2 000. The tr ial co urt den ied al l of the Les sards’ pos tju d gm e nt mot ion s o n J anuar y 31, 2000. The tr ial co ur t ent ered an amended order ofT he L essar ds di d no t nam e Fr ui t oft he Loom as a par t y i n t hei r M ar ch 13 , 200 0 sup pl em ent al not i ce 3 o fa p p e a l.

R ul e 8. 3( a) of

t he T exas Rul es of

Appel l at e Pr ocedur e pr ov i des t he f ol l owi ng: 4 If a c a s e h a s b e e n s u s p e n d e d b y a b a n k ru p tc y fi l i n g , a p a rty m a y m o v e th a t t h e a p p e l l a te cour t r ei nst at e t he a ppeal i fper m i t t ed b y f eder al l aw ort he b ankr upt cy cour t

. I ft he bankr upt cy cour t has l i f t ed o r t er m i nat ed t he st ay , a cer t i fi ed co py of t he o r derm ust be at t ached t o t he m ot i on. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8. 3( a)

. I n t he i nst ant case, t he L essar ds i ncl uded a copy of t he st at us r epor t f r om Fr ui t of t he Loom ’ s bank r upt cy pr oceedi ngs as com pi l ed by t he PA C ER D ocket Ser v i ce f ort he Uni t ed St at es Bankr upt cy C our t f ort he Di st r i ct of D el awar e wi t h t hei r m ot i on t o r ei nst at e t hei r appeal

. T hi s st at us r epor t i s not cer t i f i ed, but i t doe s i ndi cat e t hat Fr ui t of t he L oom ’ s ban k r upt cy pr oceedi ngs t er m i nat ed o n M ar ch 21 , 200 7, t her eby dem onst r at i ng t hat t he a ut om at i c st ay i s no l ongeri n eff ect

. T hough t he st at us r epor t i s not cer t i f i ed, we f i nd th a t t h e L e s s a r d s s u b s ta n ti a l l y c o m p l i e d w i th th e re q u i re m e n ts o f ru l e 8 .3 (a ) o f th e ru l e s o f a p p e l l a te p ro c e d u re
. See id. ; see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8 .3 (b ); M C ISal es & Ser v. v. H int on , N o. 10- 08- 00353
- C V, 200 8 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 8 2 0 0 , a t *1 ( T e x . A p p .– W a c o O c t. 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , p e t. f ile d ) ( m e m . o p .) ( p e r c u r ia m ) ( “ [A n a p p e a l] m ay be r ei nst at ed o n m ot i on o fanypar t y showi ng t hat t he st ay has been l i f t ed or m odi f i ed and speci fy i ng what ac t i on , i f an y , i s re qu i red from thi s C ou rt u po n rei ns t atem en t of t he ap pe al

. ”) ; Ma- St el l, I nc
. v . An ad ar

ko E&P C o. , N os
. 1 0-0 3-0 03 58 -C V & 1 0-0 5-0 02 04 -C V , 2 00 5 T ex
. A pp
. LE X I S 31 93 , at * 2 n

. 3 (T ex
. A pp
. –W ac o A pr. 27, 200 5, or der ) ( not i ng t hat r ul e 8. 3( b) oft he r ul es of app el l at e pr ocedur e pr ov i des t hat t he a ppeal s cour t m ay s e v e r a n d re i n s ta te o n i ts o w n i n i ti a ti v e ). 7 dism issal on Feb ruary 9, 20 00, add ing Fr uit of th e L o o m t o t h e l ist of defend ant s. It is

3 becau se of this al terati o n that the Les sards filed thei r suppl emental noti ce of appeal on Ma rc h 13, 2000. On D ecember

29, 1999, Fr uit of t he Loom filed a v olu ntar y peti ti on for re li ef under Chap ter 11 o f

the Unite d Sta tes Ba nkrup tcy Code in the Unite d Sta tes Ba nkrup tcy Court for the D is tr ict of D ela w are. This C our t w as noti fied of Fr uitof the L oom’s bank ru ptcy fil ing on J uly 24, 2000. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.1. On Aug ust17, 2000, thi s C our t s tay ed th e Less ards’ appeal purs uant to t he aut omati c s tay i mposed by

the bankr uptcy

co de. See 11 U. S.C . § 362( a)

. The Less ards filed a mot ion to re ins tate thei r appeal o n J u n e 8 , 200 7, noti ng thatthe bankr uptcy proceed ing s i nv olv ing F ru itof the Loom had conc lud ed on Ma rc h 21, 2007. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 8.3 (a). On Ju ne 2 8, 20 07, w e granted the Le ssards’ 4 moti on to rein sta te t hei r appeal

. This appeal foll ow ed.8 II. A N AL Y S IS A . The Trial Court’s Dismis sal of the Lessa rd’s Clai ms for Want of Prosecution In t hei r sec ond i ss ue, t he Les sards argue that the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on in e xe rc is in g it s in h e re n tp o we r t o d is m is s t h e ir ca s e fo r wa n to f

p ro s e c u t io n
. Sp e c if ic a ll y, the L ess ards cont end t hat: ( 1) the tr ial co urt fail ed to g iv e the m noti ce that itpl anned t o dism iss the ir case fo r w ant of prose cution ; and (2) the record de mo nstrat es tha t the y w ere dil ig ent i n tr

y ing to obtai n a t ri a l se tting from t he tr ial co urt. Vel si col co unters b y arg uin g tha t the Lessa rds received reaso nab le not ice and w ere giv en a n op portu nity to be hea rd before t he tr ial courtdi smi ss ed th eir cl aims after

bei ng on fil e for nin e y ears a t t he ti me of dism issal. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew W e revi ew a trial co urt's dism issal of a suit for w antof

prosecu tion u nde r an abu se of discre ti on s tandard. See MacGrego r v. Rich , 941 S.W .2d 7 4, 75 ( Tex . 199 7) ( per
cur iam) ; State v. Rotello , 671 S.W .2d 5 07, 5 09 ( Tex . 198 4) ; see a lso Sewell Motor Co. v. Capita n Enters., Inc. , No

. 0 8 -0 2 -0 0 4 5 4
- C V , 2 0 0 4 T e x. A p p
. L E XI S 3 5 7 7 , a t** 5 -6 (T e x. App.–E l Paso Apr

. 22, 2 004, pet. deni ed) ( mem. op.)

. The tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on
w hen it acts w ithou t referen ce to any guiding rules or principles or if th e actio n is arbitrary
or unreason abl e. Koslo w's v. Mackie , 79 6 S. W .2 d 70 0, 70 4 ( Tex . 199 0); Down er v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238 , 241 -42 (Te x . 198 5). A tr ial co urt m ay

di smi ss a c ase for w ant o f pros ecut ion : (1 ) w hen a par ty fail s t o appear at a hear ing or

tr ial ; ( 2) w hen t he c ase has not b een disp o se d o f w it hin theT exas R ul e ofJudi ci al A dm i ni st r at i on 6( b) pr ov i des t hat al l ci v i l j ur y cases shoul d be br ought t o t r i al 5 orf i nal di sposi t i on wi t hi n ei ght een m ont hs f r om app ear ance da t e an d t hat al l ci v i l non j ur y cases shoul d be b ro u g h t t o tri a l o r fin a l d i s p o s i ti o n w i th i n tw e lv e m o n th s fro m a p p e a ra n c e d a te

. T EX
. R. J UD
. A D M IN
. 6(b ). H owev er , t he su pr em e cou r t “ r ecogni z ed t hat i n esp eci al l y com pl ex c ases o r speci al ci r cum st ances i t m ay no t be po s s i bl e t o a dh ere t o t he s e s t an da rds

. ” T EX
. R. J UD
. A D M IN
. 6(e). 9 Sup reme Court's time stand ards; o r (3) und er t he trial co urt's inhe rent po w er to dism iss, 5
w hen t he c ase has not b e e n prosec uted w it h due dil ig ence. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 165a; Vi ll ar re al v. San Antoni

o Tru ck & Equi p. , 994 S.W .2d 6 28, 6 30 ( Tex . 199 9) ; Rotello , 671 S.W .2d a t 509 ; Bilnos k i v. Piz za Inn , Inc. , 858 S.W .2d 5 5, 57 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th Di st. ] 1 9 9 3 , n o w ri t)

. The tr ial co urt' s a uthor ity to dis mis s i s d er iv ed bot h from r ule 165a
o f t h e T e xa s Ru le s o f

Ci vil P ro c e d u re a n d f ro m it s i n h e r e n tp o we r t o m a n a ge it s o wn dock et. V

e te r a n s ’ L a n d B d

. v. W

il lia ms , 543 S.W .2d 8 9, 90 ( Tex . 197 6) ; Burto n v. Hof fm an , 959 S.W .2d 3 51, 3 53 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1998, no p et.)

. W hen an unreason abl e del ay in the prosec uti on of a c ase occ urs, iti s p re sumed that the c ase has been ab andoned. Bilnoski , 858 S.W .2d a t 57 (c it ing H o se y v. C ounty of Victo ria , 832 S.W .2d 7 01, 7 04 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1992, no w ri t) ). I f that de lay is not suf f iciently explained , the presum ption of aba ndo nm ent is conclu siv e an d the case
w il l be di smi ss ed. Id. The t ri al cou rt , in e xerc is ing i ts inh erent a uthor ity , may co nsi der per iod s o f acti v ity , i nter v als of ina cti v ity , reason s for l ack of atten ti on, and t he pas sag e of ti me to deter mine w hether the del ay

w as re asona ble

. Ozuna v. Sw. Bio-Clinical Labs. , 766 S.W .2d 9 00, 9 02 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1 9 89, w ri t den ied ); see Ki ng v . Holl and , 884 S.W .2d 2 31, 2 37 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, wri t den ied ) (n oti ng thati n ex erci si ng its inheren t power to d ismiss a case, a t rial cou rt m ay con sider the le ngth of time th e case
w as on fil e, t he extent of acti v ity in the cas e, w hether a tr ial setti ng w as re q uest ed, a nd th e
ex is tenc e of reason abl e ex cus es for th e del ay ). The Le ss ards did not re q uestfindi ng s o f10

fact or co ncl usi ons of l aw , and the tr ial cour t did not spec ify the s tandard of di smi ss al used; the refore, we must af

f irm the trial court’s decision i f a n y l e ga l t heo ry

for the d ismissal is
su p p o rt e d b y t he record. Se e Poi nt Lo okout

W., Inc . v

. Whorto n , 7 4 2 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 7 , 2 78 (Te x . 198 7); see also Maug han v. Employe es Ret. Sys. o f Tex. , No. 03- 07- 00604- CV , 200 8 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 5 822, at * 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n Aug . 1, 2008, no p et.) ( mem. op.)

. 2. Disc ussi on The Less ards firs t arg ue that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on bec ause itdi d not prov ide adeq uate noti ce of i ts int ent to dis mis s thei r cas e for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. Tex as Rul e of Civ il Proc edure 165a(1) prov ide s t hat a par ty mustbe p ro v ide d w it h not ic e and an oppor tuni ty to be heard before a t ri al cour t may di smi ss a c ase for w ant o f p ro se cution under ei ther r ule 1 6 5 a o r it s i nherent p ow er
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 165a( 1) ( “N oti ce of the
cour t’ s i ntent ion to dis mis s a nd th e dat e and pla ce of t he dis mis sal hear ing sh all be s ent by the clerk to each atto rney of record, and to each party notrepresen ted byan att orne y .”); Vi ll ar re al , 994 S.W .2d at 63 0; Du eitt v. Arrow hea d La kes Prop . Ow

ners, In c. , 180 S.W .3d 733, 737 (Tex

. App.–W aco 2005, pet. deni ed) ; see als o C all ahan v . St aples , 139 Tex . 8, 161 S. W .2d 4 89, 4 91 ( 1942) ( re q uir ing noti ce for di smi ss als under the cour

t’ s i nherent power); Guti

er re z v. Lone S tar

Nat’ l Bank , 960 S.W .2d 211, 214 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, pet. deni ed) ( re q uir ing noti ce for di smi ss als under r ule 165a)

. The req uirements of noti ce and a hear ing a re nec ess ar y to ensure tha t t he di smi ss ed c lai mant recei v ed due p ro ces s. Due itt , 1 8 0 S. W .3 d at73 7 (cit in g Sm it h v . McKee , 145 S.W .3d 299 , 302 (T e x. App.–F ort W orth 2004, no pet. ); Tex. Stin g Ltd . v. R.B. Foods, Inc. , 82 S.W .3d 6 44, 6 48 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant onio 2002, pet. deni ed) ; Fr ankl in v. Sher

m an In dep. Sch. D is t. , 53 S.W .3d 3 98, 4 01 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2001, pet. deni ed) ). The fail ure to prov ide adeq uate11

noti ce of the tr ial cour

t’ s int ent to dis mis s for w ant of prosec uti on is a due proces s v iol ati on and req uires re v ersal

. Vi ll ar re al , 9 9 4 S. W .2 d a t 6 3 0 (cit in g Donn ell v. Spring Sp orts, Inc. , 920 S.W .2d 378 , 386 (T ex. Ap p.– Housto n [1st Dist.] 199 6, w rit denied ); D avi s v . Lar edo Diesel, Inc. , 611 S.W .2d 9 43, 9 46- 47 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–W aco 1981, writ ref’d n.r .e.) ); see Keo ugh v. Cyrus U.S.A ., Inc. , 204 S.W .3d 1, 5 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 2006, pet. deni ed)

. How ev er , par ti cip a ti on i n a h ear ing on a moti on to rein sta te c ures any due proces s c oncer ns for th e tr ial co urt’ s fai lure to prov ide notic e of its in tent to dis mis s for

w ant of pros ecut ion

. Due itt , 180 S.W .3d a t 737

. T he L essard s argue thatthey did not rece iv e ad equate notice of the trial court’s int ent to d ism iss thei r cas e bec ause the n oti ce w as promulg ated by Vel si col v ia it s j oin t moti on to di smi ss for w ant o f pros ecut ion and not bythe tr ial co urt i tse lf. Theyarg ue th at Vel si col ’s j oin t moti on w as onl y suffici ent to infor m the Less ards of Vels ic ol’ s i ntent ion s a nd g av e no ind ic ati on of the tr ial co u rt’s i ntent ion s. They furth er arg ue th at V els ic ol canno t g iv e not ic e of the tr ial co urt’ s i ntent ion to dis mis s t he c lai ms us ing i ts inh erent p ow er , but tha t the trial court mustg iv e no tice of its ow n inte ntion s. How ev er , s ev eral Tex as cour ts hav e hel d tha t a dis mis sal for w ant of pros ecut ion maybe o btai ned by

the moti on of the tr ial courtor on the mot ion of any par ty to the s uit

. See D ueitt , 180 S.W .3d a t 738 ; see als o Sier ra Clubv. T

ex. C om m ’

n on Envt

l. Qual it y, N o. 03- 04- 00108- CV , 200 5 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 54, a t * 5 ( Tex . Ap p.–A u stin Jan. 21, 2005, no pet.) (“ Con trar

y to appel lan ts’ arg uments , the ru le 165a rein sta tement procedu re appl ies to al l dis mis sal s for

w ant o f pros ecut ion , reg ardle ss of w hether they are i n it ia te d by

the
cour t or moti on of a par

ty .” ); Po l k v . S w. Cr o s s i n g Ho me o w

n e r s A s s ’n , 165 S.W .3d 8 9, 92
- 93 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2005, pet. denied) (aff ir ming the tr ial co urt’ s g ra nti ng12

of appell ee’ s mo ti o n to dis mis s for w ant o f pros ecut ion ); Har vey v. Wetzel , N o. 03 -0 3- 00608- CV , 200 4 T ex . App. LEX IS 6818, at *12 (Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n J uly 29, 2004, no pet .) (s ame); W

right v. Tex. Dep ’

t of Crim inal Justic e -I n st. Div. , 1 3 7 S

. W

. 3 d 6 9 3 , 6 9 4 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 4, no pet. ) (s ame); Ma nni ng v . Nor th , 8 2 S .W .3d 7 06, 7 12 (Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2002, no pet .) ( same)

. Fur ther more, the Tex as Supreme C our t has hel d tha t eit

her noti ce of the tr ial co urt’ s i ntentto dis mis s o r noti ce of the actual order of dis mis sal i s s uff ic ien t not ic e. See Har ri s C ounty

v. M il ler , 576 S.W .2d 808 , 810 (T e x. 1979) ; see Lowe v. U.S. Shoe C or p. , 849 S.W .2d 888, 891 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 199 3, w rit denied ). Vel si col fil ed i ts joi nt mot ion to dis mis s for w ant of prosec uti on on Oct ober 18, 1999,
more than nin e y ears a fter t he Les sa rd s h ad first filed thei r lawsui t. In it s j oin t moti on, Ve lsi co l n o te d th e fo llo wing:

Tri al w as setfor t his ca se on J anuar y 9, 1995, in Liv e Oak

C ounty dur ing a w eek that w as not a j u ry wee k. In approx imat ely l ate O cto ber

of 1994, the H onorabl e J udg e R odr ig u e z n oted that there w oul d notbe a n actu al jury

setting in the case nor a new docket con trol conf e rence , unle ss and unt il the par

ti es ag re ed to a v is it ing judg e. Thereafter , t he D efendants [Vel si col and others] on numerous occ asi ons p rov ide d the Pl ain ti ffs [ the Lessa rds] lists of

v isiting judges, am ong w hich includ ed, Judge W ells Stew art, Judg e Ver non H ar v il le, and the l ate J udg e Oni on. De spi te t he De fe n d a n ts ’ e f

fo rt s, th e Pla in ti f

fs fa ile d to do an yth in g. It ha s bee n ne arly

nine years since the f iling of this suit. To date , all cl aims reg ardin g the Defendant s h av e been resol v ed w it h the ex cept ion of the claims set forth by the Le ssards. T he Lessa rds rema in the only outs tandi ng cl aims des pit e medi ati on attempts and numerous letters s ent t o the P lai nti ffs o n behal f of the Defendant s t o obt ain a v is it ing j udg e. T he Sa v age Defend ant s h ave m ade n um erou s e f forts to resolve this cl aim and hav e he ard no re ply from t he Pl ain ti ffs. To ensur e tha t t he intere sts of the Defen dan ts are prese rved an d to rea ch a resol u t io n in this lon g s tal led ca se, the Def

endants as k t

his C our t to di sm is s t his m atter for fai lur e of the P

lai nti ffs to pr oper ly and effici

entl y p ur sue thei r cas e.13 W HE RE FO RE PR EMISES

C ON SID ER EDthe De fendant s re spec tful

ly r eques t t he Cou rt gr

ant t he Join t Moti

on toD is m is s f

or Want of Pr osec uti on. (E mphasi s a dded.) O n N o vem b e r 1 2 , 199 9, t he Les sards filed a respon se to t he j oin t moti on to di smi ss , al leg ing thatthe re ason for th e del ay i n the ca se w as that the p arti es coul d n o t a g re e o n a v i s i t i n g j u d g e a n d p ro p o s i n g a l i s t o f t h re e v i s i t i n g j u dg es. O n Nov ember

17, 1999, th e t ria l cour t c onducted a hear ing on V els ic ol’ s j oin t moti on to dis mis s. Iti s n ot c lea r from the re cord tha t t he tr ial co urt not ified the Less ards of its i ntent to dis mis s thei r cl aims for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. Se e Alexander v. Ly nda’ s B outi que , 134 S.W .3d 8 45, 8 49-5 0 (Te x . 200 4) (“[M]ere silence as to w het her not ice [of inten t to dism iss]
w as sent does not est abl is h that noti ce w as not s ent .

. . . ”) ; see als o Keough , 204 S.W .3d at 5. I n any

ev ent, after hear ing arg uments f ro m Vel si col , t he Sav ag e par ti es, and the Less ards, the tr ial co urt g ra nted Vel si col ’s join t motion to dis mis s for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. Al l that due proces s req uires is thata pa rty be g iv en not ice of

the ti me and
su b st a n ce of

th e he a rin g, a n d an op p o rt u n it y to p re se n t a rgu m e n ts atth e he a rin g. Se e Sm it h , 145 S.W .3d a t 302 ; Tex. St ing Ltd. , 82 S.W .3d a t 648 ; see als o D ueitt , 180 S.W .3d at 73 9. Vel si col ’s j oin t moti on to di smi ss put the Less ards on not ic e tha t t hei r cl aims may be di smi ss ed for w ant o f pros ecut ion bythe tr ial co urt. See D ueitt , 180 S.W .3d a t 740 (holdin g tha t “‘a dismissal no tice con tainin g no referen ce to Rule 1 6 5 a o r th e cou rt’s inhe rent au tho rity

[is] suf f icient to putt he app ellanto n not ice tha t the court cou ld dismiss under R ule 165a( 1) , R ule 165a( 2) , or i ts inh erent a uthor ity ’” ( q uoti ng Stewar d v. Col oni al Cas . Ins. C o. , 143 S.W .3d 1 61, 1 63- 64 (Tex . App.–W aco 2004, no pet .) ))

. By co nduct ing the N ov ember

17, 1999 hear ing , the tr ial cour t afforded the Less ards an oppor tuni ty to be heard and to prov ide adeq uate just ific ati ons for th e ni ne- y ear del ay i n prosec uti ng theO urconcl usi on i s f ur t hersupp or t ed b y t he f act t hat t he L essar ds wer e pr ov i ded a cop y of t he a ct ual 6 d i s m i s s a l o rd e r, w h i c h a l l o w e d th e m to t im e ly f ile th e i r m o ti o n to re i n s ta te

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 165a( 3) ( pr ov i di ng t hat a m ot i on t o rei ns t at e m ust be f i l ed wi t hi n t hi r t y day s aft ert he o r derof di sm i ssal i s si gned or w i th i n th e p e rio d p re s c rib e d b y R u l e 3 0 6 a ); see also H ar r is C ount y v. Mil l er , 576 S. W

. 2d 8 08, 810 ( T ex. 197 9) ( h o l d i n g th a t ei ther n o ti c e o f t h e tri a l c o u rt’ s i n te n t to d i s m i s s o r n o ti c e o f t h e a c tu a l o rd e r o f d i s m i s s a l is s u ff i c i e n t n o ti c e ); Low e v. U

. S. Shoe Cor p. , 8 4 9 S .W .2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 1 ( T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D is t. ] 1 9 9 3 , w r it d e n i e d ) (s a m e ). 14 cas e. Se e Lo we , 8 49 S. W .2d at 891 (“ It is g ene rally held th at a pa rty

to a law suit is charged wi th no tice tha t the suit ma y b e dism issed for want of prosecu tion when the re is inactio n for a long p e ri o d o f time. This con structive notice sat isf ies due process
re q uirements .” ) (i nter nal ci tati on omi tted)

. Thus, w e c oncl ude t hat t he Les sards re cei v ed due process. See D ueitt , 180 S.W .3d a t 740 ; see a lso Bilnoski , 858 S.W .2d a t 57; Lo we ,

6 849 S. W .2d a t 891

. Next, the Lessa rds conte nd th at th e record dem onst rates tha t the y were dilig entin prose cuting the ir claims; the refore, the trial court abuse d its discretion in grant ing Velsicol’s joi nt mot ion to dis mis s. W e di sag re e. As previously

men t io n e d , the trial court may conside r periods of activ ity , intervals of inacti v ity , reason s for l ack of atten ti on, a nd th e pass ag e of t ime in deter mini ng w hether
a cas e shoul d be di smi ss ed for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. Se e Ozuna , 766 S.W .2d a t 902 ; see als o Ki ng , 884 S.W .2d a t 237

. Fur ther more, w hen there i s a n unreason abl e del ay i n the prosec uti on of the cas e, i t i s p re sumed that the c ase has been ab and o ned unl ess the dis mis sed cl aimantprov ide d a s uff ic ien t j ust if ica ti o n for t he del ay
. See Bilnoski , 858 S.W .2d a t 57; Hos ey, 832 S.W .2d a t 704

. Here, t he record s uppor ts an i mpli ed findi ng thatthe cas e w as not prosec uted w it h dil ig ence. N ear ly

ni ne y ears elaps ed betw een t he dat e the ca se w as firs t fil ed—D ecemberAs not ed e ar l i er , t he t r i al c our t di d am end i t s di sm i ssal or dert o i ncl ude Fru i t of t he L oom as a 7 def endan t on Januar y 31, 200 0.

C ounsel ’ s adm i ssi on i s supp or t ed b y t he a ff i dav i t f i l ed b y Spagno l et t i , wher e he bl am ed t he d el ay 8 on t he co m pl exi t y of

t he ca se ( i nv ol v i ng m ul t i pl e pl ai nt i ff s and def endan t s) and t he f act t hat t he ca se ha d be en ha nd l ed by se vera l as s oc i ates at t he l aw fi rm
.

T h e L e s s a r d s r e n e w e d th e ir r e q u e s t f o r a tr ia l s e tt in g a t th e N o v e m b e r 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 h e a r in g a n d in th e ir 9 m ot i on t o r ei nst at e. 15 31, 1 990—a nd th e dat e the tr ial co urt final ly dis mis sed it—N ov ember 17, 1999. D ur ing

7 that ti me, th e par

ti e s e n gage d i n s ome di sc ov er y and par ti ci pated in mediat ion

. Se e Nichols v. Sedalco Con str. Servs. , 228 S.W .3d 3 41, 3 43 ( Tex . A pp.–W aco 2007, pet. deni ed) ( hol din g thatthe tr ial co urt di d notabus e it s dis creti on in dis mis si ng a cas e for w ant of pros ecut ion w here br ief per io d s o f acti v ity di d notex pla in re maini ng l ong per iod s o f in a ct ivity). Ho wever, t h e p a rt ie s n e it h e r re so lved th e ir cl a im s n o r agr e e d on a visi ti n g jud ge to he ar the cas e, as ordered by the tr ial co urt on June 24, 1 993. At the N ov ember 17, 1999 he ar ing , c ounse l for th e Les sards sta ted t hat t h e r eason for t he del ay ce ntered on his empl oy ment s tatus

. Acc ordin g to couns el for t he Les sards, he i nit ial ly represent ed th e Less ards unti l he di sc onti nued empl oy ment w it h hi s l aw fir m for fiv e y ears. H e admi tted to t he tr ial co urt t hat h is l aw fir m “n ev er did mov e the cas e” unti l he re tur ned t o w or k for the law fir m after his fiv e y ear

hi atus

. M oreov er , the L ess ards did not file a req uestfor a tr ial

8
s etti ng from t he t r i al c ou rt un ti l M arc h 14 , 19 99

. The Les s ards had an ab un da nc e of t i me 9
w ith w hich to prosecu te the ir claim , y et v erylittle p rosecu tion occurred in t his case un til it
w as iton t he v erg e of bei ng dismi ss ed. W e do not f ind the Less ards’ just ific ati ons to be
s u ffi c i e n t i n e x p l a i n i n g t h e n i n e - y e a r d e l a y i n p ro s e c u t i n g t he c ase. Se e Ozuna , 766 S.W .2d a t 902 ; Ki

ng , 884 S.W .2d a t 237 ; Bilnoski , 858 S.W .2d a t 57; Hos ey, 832 S.W .2d at 704. W e therefore conc lud e that the t ri al cour t di d notabus e i ts dis creti on i n di smi ss ing the L ess ards’ cl aims under i ts inh erent a uthor ity . See M acG re gor

, 941 S.W .2d a t 75;16

Rotello , 671 S.W .2d a t 509

. Acc ordin g ly , w e ov er ru le the L ess ards’ se cond is sue. B. The Trial Court’s Denial of the Lessa rd’s Motion for Reinstateme nt In th eir first issue, the Le ssards asse rt that th e trial court ab used its discretion in ref using to reinsta te th eir claims pursu antto Rule 16 5a o f the T e xa s R ules of

Civ il Procedu re
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 165a. The Les sards arg ue th at: ( 1) they w ere not
cons ci ousl y

i ndi fferent t o the tr ial co urt’ s o rd ers reg ardin g t h e a p p o int ment of v is it ing judges; (2) they did n ot abu se the p retrial d iscovery p rocess; (3) they show ed th e trial court that they w ere ready for tr ial ; (4 ) thei r cl aims are mer it or iou s a nd th ey sh oul d be g iv en an opp ortun ity

to be h ea rd ; a n d (5) Ve lsicol did not d em onst rate th at it w ould be un fairly preju dic ed by

the re ins tatement of t he Less ard’s l aw sui t. Vel si col co ntends thatthe tr ial
court did n o ta b u s e i t s d i s c re t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e L e s s a rd ’ s m o t i o n fo r re i n s t a t e me nt becau se: ( 1) th e L e ss a rds i g nored for si x y ears t he tr ial co urt’ s o rd ers t o ag re e on a
v isiting judge; an d (2) the Le ssards failed to provi de Ve lsicol w ith d is c o veryon a ne w ly all eg ed medical clai m. Vels ic ol arg ues that the L ess ard’s j ust ific ati ons for th e del ay s—that the c ase or ig ina ll y

i nv olv ed numerous par ti es and t he l aw

fir m represent ing the Less ards had reass ig ned t he c ase to v ar iou s a ss oci ates ov er the y ears—were not a deq uate to
w ar ra nt a re ins tatementof the c ase. 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 165a( 3) set s out the procedu re for rein sta ti ng ca ses dis mis sed for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 165a( 3)

. A tr ial co urt i s c ompell ed to rein sta te a cas e “ upon find ing after a he ar ing that the fai lure of the par ty or his attor ney
w as not i nte n ti onal or

the re sul t of co nsc iou s i ndi fference but w as due t o an acc ide nt or mista ke or tha t the failure h a s b een othe rw ise reason ably ex plaine d.” Id. In order toW e not e t hat t he r ecor d r ef l ect s t hat t he t r i al cour t conduct ed a hea r i ng o n Vel si col ’ s j oi nt m ot i on 10 t o di s m i s s rat he r t ha n t he Le s s ard s ’ m oti on t o r ei ns t ate

. See T EX
. R .C IV
. P. 165a( 3) ( pr ov i di ng t hat a t r i al cour t i s com pel l ed t o r ei nst at e a case “ upon f i ndi ng af t era hear i ng t hat t he f ai l ur e of t he p ar t y orhi s at t or ney was not i nt ent i onal or t he r esul t of consci ous i ndi ff er ence but was du e t o an acci dent orm i st ake or t hat t he f ai l ur e has been ot her wi se r easona bl y expl ai ned. ” )

. T he supr em e cour t has hel d t hat w hen a v er i f i ed m ot i on t o r ei nst at e ha s bee n f i l ed u nderr ul e 16 5a( 3) , an or al hea r i ng i s r equi r ed, and a f ai l ur e t o hol d such a hea r i ng re q u i re s re v e rs a l

. See Thordson v. C i t y of H oust on , 81 5 S

. W

. 2d 55 0, 55 0 (T ex . 19 91 ) ( pe r cu ri am ). H o w e v e r , t h e L e s s a r d s d o n o t a r g u e o n a p p e a l th a t t h e y w e r e im p r o p e r ly d e n ie d a n o r a l h e a r in g o n th e ir m ot i on f orre i nst at em ent and, i nst ead, re l y on t he ev i dence pr esent ed at t he t r i al cour t ’ s N ov em ber17, 199 9 17 deter mine w hether

the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on i n refusing rein sta tement, w e rev iew the entire record and dete rmine w het her the ev iden ce w as suf f icient to f ind th at th e failure of t he par

ty w as not due to acc ide nt, mis tak e, or other reason abl e ex pla nati on. Se e Tex. Dep’ t of Pub. Safety v. Deck , 954 S.W .2d 108 , 112 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 199 7, no w rit);
se e also Tor

re s v . Rios , 86 9 S. W .2 d 55 5, 55 7 ( Tex

. Ap p. –C or pu s C hr i s ti 19 93 , no w rit). The par ty req uest ing rei nst atement has the burden to bri ng forth a record es tabl is hin g that
re ins tatementw as re q uired. Kenley v. Qui ntana Petr

ole umC or

p. , 931 S.W .2d 3 18, 3 21 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 1996, w ri t den ied ). 2. Disc ussi on W e hav e al re ady

dete rmi ned t hat t he record does not suppo rt a findi ng that the t ri al
cour t abu sed it s d is creti on by di smi ss ing the cas e. Mo re ov er , t he record s uppor ts an i mp l i e d fi n d i n g t h a t t h e L e s s a rd s d i d n o t p ro s e c u t e t h i s c a s e w i t h d i li g ence. Se e D ueitt , 180 S. W .3d a t 741 ; see a ls o Lu na v. UPS, Inc. , N o. 01 -0 2- 00144- CV , 200 3 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 4 65, a t * *8- 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] Jan. 9, 2003, pet. de nie d) ( conc lud ing that the tr ial courtdid not abuse its disc re ti on in dis mis si ng appell ant’ s cl aims for fail ing to
ex erci se dil ig ence in prosec uti ng hi s c lai ms and thatthe tr ial co urt di d not abuse i ts dis creti on i n deny ing appel lan t’ s mot ion to re ins tate becau se of the di smi ss al)

. Therefore, the L ess ards hav e fail ed to m e e t their burden t o br ing forth a record s uppor ti ng
re ins tatement

. W e ov er ru le the L ess ards’ first is sue. 10hear i ng o n Vel si col ’ s j oi nt m ot i on t o di sm i ss. Fur t her m or e, t he L essar ds, i n t hei r v er i f i ed m ot i on t o r ei nst at e,

d i d n o t re q u e s t a h e a rin g o n th e m o ti o n
. See K eo ug h v. C yrus U. S. A. , I nc. , 204 S. W

. 3d 1 , 6 n. 3 ( T ex. A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (n o ti n g th a t b e fo re tria l c o u rt e rr o r c a n b e fo u n d i n th e fa i l u re to s e t a h e a rin g o n a m o ti o n to re i n s ta te , t h e m o v a n t m u s t re q u e s t a h e a rin g ); C abr er a v. C edar

apids, I nc. , 834 S .W .2 d 6 1 5 , 6 1 8 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 2 , w rit d e n i e d ) (s a m e ); bu t s ee Mathe so n v. Am

. C ar bonics , 867 S. W

. 2d 1 46, 147
- 48 ( T ex. App. –T exar k ana 1993, no wr i t ) (“ [ T ] he co ur t i s r equi r ed t o con duct a h e a rin g o n a ti m e l y fi l e d m o ti o n to re i n s ta te

. W h e th e r o r n o t t h e m o v a n t re q u e s ts a h e a rin g o n a m o ti o n to r ei nst at e i s i r r el ev ant ; a hear i ng i s r equi r ed unl ess wai v ed. ” ) (i nt er nal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. M or eov er , t he t r i al cour t , bypr ov i di ng t he L essar ds no t i ce of and an oppor t uni t y t o be hear d at t he N ov em ber 17, 199 9 he ar i ng, aff or ded t he L essar ds wi t h du e pr ocess a nd, t her ef or e, was no t r equi r ed t o con duct a hear i ng o n t he L e s s a rd s ’ m o ti o n to re i n s ta te

. See D ueit t v. Ar row head Lakes Prop. O w ner s, I nc. , 180 S. W

. 3d 7 33, 740
- 41 ( T ex. App. –W aco 2 005, pet

. den i ed) ( concl udi ng t hat t he t r i al cour t ’ s f ai l ur e t o con duct a hear i ng o n appel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o r ei nst at e was har m l ess er r orbeca use a ppel l ant s wer e pr ov i ded due pr ocess i n a pr i or he ari ng on ap pe l l ee ’ s m oti on t o d i s m i s s for wa nt of p ros ec uti on ). 18 IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s d is mis sal of the Less ards’ cl aims for w ant o f pros ecut ion and i ts deni al of the Les sards’ moti on to rein sta te.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 23rd day

of Apr il , 200 9.