Court Opinion

ID: 9402925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-19 15:08:08.640133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:03.536264
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued June 15, 2023

                                      In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                          First District of Texas
                             ————————————
                               NO. 01-22-00207-CV
                            ———————————
         THE BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant
                                         V.
  JUST INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC AND ALEX GRIGSBY, Appellees

                    On Appeal from the 215th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 2018-82446

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant the Burlington Insurance Company (“Burlington”) issued an

insurance policy to appellee Just Industrial Services, LLC (“Just Industrial”). After

Just Industrial allegedly failed to pay all premiums due under the policy, Burlington
filed suit and asserted claims for suit on a sworn account, breach of contract, and

quantum meruit. During the pendency of the suit, Burlington missed a virtual docket

call, and the trial court dismissed Burlington’s claims for want of prosecution.

Burlington filed a verified motion to reinstate the case and a verified motion for

reconsideration, but the trial court denied the motions.

       In its sole issue on appeal, Burlington argues that it missed the docket call due

to a calendaring mistake, and therefore its failure to appear was due to an accident

or mistake and was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. Burlington

contends that the trial court erred by failing to reinstate the case. We reverse and

remand.

                                     Background

       In November 2018, Burlington filed suit against Just Industrial and Alex

Grigsby, one of Just Industrial’s directors or officers. Burlington alleged that it had

issued an insurance policy to Just Industrial. It further alleged that it had provided

coverage under the policy, but Just Industrial had failed to pay the balance of all

premiums due under the policy. Burlington asserted claims for suit on a sworn

account, breach of contract, and quantum meruit. Burlington also asserted claims

against Grigsby because Just Industrial had allegedly forfeited its corporate charter

during the policy period, making Grigsby personally liable for debts incurred during

the forfeiture.

                                           2
      After the initial trial setting was reset several times throughout 2020, the trial

court granted a motion for continuance and set the case for trial on January 3, 2022.

In October 2021, with the trial date less than three months away, Just Industrial and

Grigsby moved to substitute counsel. The trial court granted this motion and allowed

the substitution of new counsel. Around this same time, the trial court sent a “trial

reminder” to counsel of record. This reminder stated that the case was set for trial

for the two-week period beginning on January 3, 2022. It further stated: “DOCKET

CALL DECEMBER 13th 2021[.] Parties are to appear at 9 AM SHARP for Docket

call; Late arrivals will subject your matter to be dismissed.”

      Just Industrial and Grigsby’s new counsel moved for a continuance and

requested that they be allowed to conduct limited discovery for documents that “are

necessary to aid in settlement, including mediation.” The trial court denied this

motion. According to Burlington, the parties were scheduled to attend mediation in

late December 2021.

      On December 10, 2021, the trial court’s coordinator sent an email to numerous

attorneys, including counsel for Burlington and Just Industrial. The subject line of

this email stated, “Docket Call 12/13/2021.” The body of the email reminded

attorneys that a virtual docket call was scheduled for December 13, 2021. The court

coordinator would call the cases twice: once at 8:30 a.m. and once at 9:00 a.m. “Any

                                           3
late arrival on Zoom after 9:30 am will not attend.” The email also included the link

to attend the docket call via the Zoom videoconferencing platform.

      It is undisputed that Burlington did not attend the virtual docket call on

December 13, 2021. Although counsel for both parties represent that the trial court

dismissed the case on that date, no signed order dismissing the case and dated

December 13, 2021, appears in the appellate record.

      On January 7, 2022, Burlington filed a verified motion to reinstate. Burlington

addressed the progress of the case thus far, including its service of discovery requests

in January 2019, its attempts to schedule mediation throughout 2019, its filing of a

summary judgment motion in October 2020, and Just Industrial’s retention of new

counsel in October 2021. Burlington then explained that a mediation had been

scheduled for December 30, 2021, but Just Industrial and Grigsby cancelled the

mediation “on the grounds that the case had apparently been dismissed.” Burlington

then stated that it did not attend “the pre-trial conference on December 14, 2021”

due to a “clerical error.” Specifically, counsel had “local counsel coverage set to

attend the December 14, 2021 Pre-Trial conference” along with two summary

judgment hearings in other Harris County district and county courts. However, when

both summary judgment hearings were rescheduled, “clerical staff inadvertently

removed this pre-trial conference from the calendar as well and did not have any

local counsel set to appear.” Burlington requested that the trial court reinstate the

                                           4
case because Burlington’s failure to attend the pre-trial conference was inadvertent

and it had been diligently prosecuting the case.1

      In response, Just Industrial and Grigsby argued that Burlington did not meet

its burden to show that its failure to appear was not intentional or the result of

conscious indifference. They argued that the facts in Burlington’s motion relating to

a pre-trial conference on December 14, 2021, were irrelevant because the virtual

docket call was scheduled for December 13, 2021, and the motion to reinstate did

not address the December 13 docket call at all. They argued that because the motion

to reinstate did not provide any explanation for Burlington’s failure to appear at the

December 13, 2021 docket call, the court should deny the motion to reinstate.

      The trial court denied Burlington’s motion to reinstate on January 31, 2022.

      One month later, on March 1, 2022, Burlington filed a “Verified Motion for

Reconsideration.” This motion was largely identical to Burlington’s verified motion

to reinstate. Burlington stated that the trial court had denied the motion to reinstate,

and it requested that the trial court reconsider that decision.

1
      Burlington attached an affidavit from counsel’s legal assistant to its verified motion
      to reinstate. This affidavit described the scheduling of the pre-trial conference and
      the clerical error that led to the conference being removed from counsel’s calendar.
      Just Industrial and Grigsby objected to this affidavit on multiple grounds, and the
      trial court sustained the objections and struck the affidavit. On appeal, Burlington
      does not argue that the trial court erred in sustaining the objections to the affidavit.
      We therefore do not consider this affidavit in our analysis.
                                             5
      On March 2, 2022, the trial court signed a written order dismissing the case

for want of prosecution. The order stated as the reason for dismissal: “Failure to

appear at court ordered docket-call[.] On December 13, 2021 @ 9 am.” This is the

only dismissal order that appears in the appellate record.

      The trial court held a hearing on Burlington’s motion for reconsideration on

March 10, 2022. At the close of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion to

reconsider. This appeal followed.

                           Denial of Motion to Reinstate

      In its sole issue, Burlington argues that the trial court erred by denying its

motion to reinstate the case because its failure to appear at the virtual docket call

was due to an accident or mistake and was not intentional or the result of conscious

indifference.

A.    Standard of Review and Governing Law

      The trial court’s authority to dismiss a case for want of prosecution stems from

two sources: Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a and the court’s inherent power.

Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999). Under

Rule 165a(1), the trial court may dismiss a case for want of prosecution “on failure

of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear for any hearing or trial of which the

party had notice.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(1). If a party’s case is dismissed for want of

prosecution, the party may move to reinstate the case. Gillis v. Harris Cnty., 554

                                          6
S.W.3d 188, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). “A motion to

reinstate shall set forth the grounds therefor and be verified by the movant or his

attorney.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3). The trial court “shall reinstate the case upon

finding after a hearing that the failure of the party or his attorney 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.” Id.

      The standard for reinstating a case following dismissal for want of prosecution

is essentially the same as the standard for setting aside a default judgment. Smith v.

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

Mansaray v. Phillips, 626 S.W.3d 402, 405 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.). A

failure to appear is not intentional or due to conscious indifference “merely because

it is deliberate”; instead, it must also be without adequate justification. Smith, 913

S.W.2d at 468; Mansaray, 626 S.W.3d at 405. The party seeking reinstatement bears

the burden and must provide some proof of an adequate justification that negates

intent or conscious indifference. Gillis, 554 S.W.3d at 194.

      “Proof of such justification—accident, mistake or other reasonable

explanation—negates the intent or conscious indifference for which reinstatement

can be denied.” Smith, 913 S.W.2d at 468. Conscious indifference “means more than

mere negligence.” Id.; Mansaray, 626 S.W.3d at 405. “Some excuse, but not

necessarily a good excuse, is enough to show lack of conscious indifference.”

                                           7
Dalmex, Ltd. v. Apparel Enters., Inc., 455 S.W.3d 241, 244 (Tex. App.—El Paso

2015, no pet.); Rasco v. Ducars Inv., LLC, No. 02-21-00375-CV, 2022 WL 4373499,

at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 22, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[P]roof of a

mistake—even an unreasonable one—is sufficient to negate intent or conscious

indifference.”).

      We review the trial court’s denial of a motion to reinstate for an abuse of

discretion. Mansaray, 626 S.W.3d at 405. A trial court abuses its discretion when it

acts arbitrarily or without reference to guiding rules and principles. Gillis, 554

S.W.3d at 194. “A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for

reinstatement when an attorney’s explanation for the failure to appear is reasonable.”

Mack v. Ret. Hous. Found., 627 S.W.3d 391, 394 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2021, no pet.).

B.    Whether Burlington Demonstrated that its Failure to Appear Was an
      Accident or Mistake

      It is undisputed that the trial court held a virtual docket call on December 13,

2021, and the court sent at least two notices to the parties concerning this docket

call. The first notice, a “trial reminder” sent by mail on October 26, 2021, notified

counsel that the case was set for trial for the two-week period beginning January 3,

2022, and that docket call would occur at “9 AM SHARP” on December 13, 2021.

This reminder then stated: “Late arrivals will subject your matter to be dismissed.”

                                          8
      The second notice was sent by the trial court coordinator via email on

December 10, 2021, three days before the docket call. The email was entitled

“Docket Call 12/13/2021” and reminded attorneys for several cases—including the

attorneys for Burlington and Just Industrial in this case—that docket call would be

held on Zoom beginning at 8:30 a.m. on December 13, 2021. The email included the

link for the Zoom meeting and stated: “Any late arrival on Zoom after 9:30 am will

not attend.” Burlington’s counsel confirmed that an email address listed among the

recipients of the email was his correct email address.

      It is also undisputed that Burlington did not attend the virtual docket call.

According to Burlington, counsel for Just Industrial cancelled a mediation scheduled

for December 30, 2021, and notified Burlington that the trial court had dismissed the

case. Although the trial court had not yet signed a written order dismissing the case,

Burlington filed a verified motion to reinstate on January 7, 2022. In this motion,

counsel described actions that he had taken in the case on Burlington’s behalf

throughout 2019 and 2020. Burlington then stated:

      11.    In October of 2021, Defendants sought to retain new counsel.
      12. Following Defendants retaining new counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel
      discussed the case with Defendants’ new counsel and shared
      information about the underlying lawsuit.
      13. Mediation was set for December 21, 2021 and was rescheduled
      to December 30, 2021, at the request of Defendants’ counsel. Plaintiff
      did not object to this December 30, 2021 date in an effort to
      accommodate Defendants.

                                          9
      14. On December 28, 2021, Defendants unilaterally canceled
      mediation on the grounds that the case had apparently been dismissed.
      This was the first Plaintiff learned the case had been dismissed.
      15.      Trial was set on the two week docket beginning January 3, 2022.
      16. Due to a clerical error, Plaintiff did not attend the pre-trial
      conference on December 14, 2021.
      17. Plaintiff’s counsel had local counsel coverage set to attend the
      December 14, 2021 Pre-Trial conference along with a motion for
      summary judgment in Harris County Court at Law #3, and a motion for
      summary judgment in Harris County 164th District Court.
      18. When the motions for summary judgments in County Court at
      Law #3 and the 164th District Court were rescheduled, Plaintiff’s
      counsel’s clerical staff inadvertently removed this pre-trial conference
      from the calendar as well and did not have any local counsel set to
      appear.
      19. The Plaintiff was ready for mediation on December 30th and trial
      on the two week docket beginning January 3, 2022.

Burlington requested that the court reinstate the case because Burlington had been

“actively litigating the lawsuit,” and its failure to attend the pre-trial conference was

inadvertent.

      The trial court denied Burlington’s verified motion to reinstate. Burlington

then filed a verified motion for reconsideration. This motion was largely identical to

Burlington’s verified motion to reinstate, but in this motion, Burlington did not

provide details concerning the alleged clerical error concerning calendaring of the

docket call. Instead, it stated only that “[d]ue to a clerical error, Plaintiff did not

attend a pre-trial conference for this case.” Burlington again stated that it had been

ready for mediation on December 30, 2021, and trial on January 3, 2022, and that it

                                           10
had diligently litigated the case. Burlington did not attach any evidence to its motion

for reconsideration.

      After Burlington filed its motion for reconsideration, the trial court signed a

written order dismissing the case for want of prosecution due to Burlington’s failure

to attend the December 13, 2021 virtual docket call. The trial court then held a

hearing on the motion for reconsideration. No witnesses testified at this hearing, and

the trial court did not admit any evidence. The trial court denied Burlington’s

verified motion for reconsideration.

      This Court has held that a calendaring error is a sufficient “accident or

mistake” under Rule 165a(3) to negate acting with intent or conscious indifference.

See E&M Plumbing Ltd. v. W. Houston Winnelson Co., No. 01-17-00601-CV, 2018

WL 3542916, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 24, 2018, no pet.) (mem.

op.); see also Renfro v. Davis, No. 01-21-00540-CV, 2022 WL 3031605, at *3–4

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 2, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that

counsel’s explanation for failing to appear at case management conference and for

failing to submit scheduling order as required by trial court letter was “reasonable”

when counsel was unaware of requirements because, due to disruption caused by

COVID-19 pandemic, “clerical and calendaring errors” caused counsel not to

receive court’s letter); Dalmex, 455 S.W.3d at 244 (“Mistakes in internal office

procedures and other circumstances that result in an event not being properly

                                          11
calendared demonstrate that the failure to appear was not intentional but due to

accident or mistake.”).

      In E&M Plumbing, the trial court notified the plaintiff of its intent to dismiss

the lawsuit for want of prosecution by March 24, 2017. 2018 WL 3542916 at *1, 3.

The plaintiff’s counsel received that notice. Id. at *3. However, counsel

“inadvertently failed to record the March 24 deadline in his calendar, so the deadline

passed without [the plaintiff] filing a motion to retain.” Id. Although the trial court

dismissed the case for want of prosecution on May 2, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel did

not receive notice of the dismissal order until June 22. Id. at *1, 3. Counsel then filed

a verified motion to reinstate the next day and explained the calendaring error. Id.

      In reviewing the trial court’s order denying the plaintiff’s motion to reinstate,

we stated that counsel’s explanation in his verification “sufficiently establishes

‘accident or mistake’ under Rule 165a(3),” and “negates the intent or conscious

indifference for which reinstatement can be denied.” Id. at *3 (quoting Smith, 913

S.W.2d at 468). We held that because the plaintiff’s verified motion “met the

requirements for reinstatement,” the trial court abused its discretion in denying the

motion. Id. at *4.

      Here, Burlington explained in its verified motion to reinstate that it made a

calendaring error with respect to the pre-trial conference. Counsel had “local

counsel” set to attend the pre-trial conference along with summary judgment

                                           12
hearings in two other cases on December 14, 2021. When the summary judgment

hearings were cancelled and rescheduled, clerical staff inadvertently removed the

pretrial conference scheduled in this case from the calendar as well, and local

counsel did not appear for the conference. We conclude that Burlington presented

proof of a calendaring error that sufficiently establishes that its failure to attend the

virtual docket call was an accident or mistake and was not intentional or the result

of conscious indifference. See Smith, 913 S.W.2d at 468; E&M Plumbing, 2018 WL

3542916 at *3.

      Just Industrial and Grigsby argue that Burlington did not provide a sufficient

justification in its motion to reinstate or motion for reconsideration because both

motions focused on Burlington’s failure to attend a pretrial conference scheduled for

December 14, but Burlington did not explain its failure to attend the virtual docket

call on December 13.

      However, at the time Burlington filed its verified motion to reinstate on

January 7, 2022, and its verified motion for reconsideration on March 1, 2022, the

trial court had not yet signed a written order of dismissal. Therefore, Burlington did

not have the benefit of a written order that identified Burlington’s failure to attend a

docket call on December 13 as the reason for dismissal.2 We disagree with Just

2
      We note that if the trial court signed a written order dismissing the case immediately
      after the virtual docket call on December 13, such an order does not appear in the
      appellate record. Instead, the only dismissal order that appears in the record was
                                            13
Industrial and Grigsby that Burlington’s failure to explain its non-attendance at the

docket call on December 13 is fatal to its attempts to reinstate the case.

      To the extent Just Industrial and Grigsby also argue that Burlington was

required to submit an affidavit or witness testimony to meet its burden to establish

that the trial court should reinstate the case, we disagree. In determining that a party

seeking reinstatement has met its burden, appellate courts have looked solely to the

facts presented in a verified motion to reinstate and have not required additional

evidence. See, e.g., E&M Plumbing, 2018 WL 3542916 at *3 (concluding that

counsel’s explanation “in his verification that he inadvertently failed to record the

March 24 [case disposition] deadline in his calendar” was sufficient to establish

accident or mistake); Renfro, 2022 WL 3031605, at *3–4 (concluding that counsel’s

uncontradicted explanation set out in verified motion to reinstate provided sufficient

and reasonable explanation for plaintiff’s failure to appear); Tunchez v. Houk, No.

05-20-00330-CV, 2021 WL 5822839, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 8, 2021, no

pet.) (mem. op.) (“If the explanation in the verified motion is adequate to show

mistake or accident, the movant need not present evidence supporting it at the oral

reinstatement hearing.”).

      signed by the trial court on March 2, 2022, nearly three months after the docket call.
      Although this order identified the reason for dismissal as Burlington’s failure to
      attend a court-ordered docket call on December 13, 2021, it was signed after
      Burlington filed its verified motion to reinstate and its verified motion for
      reconsideration.
                                            14
      Moreover, we disagree with Just Industrial and Grigsby that Burlington’s

verified motion was conclusory and did not provide a sufficient justification for

Burlington’s failure to attend the docket call. In making this argument, Just Industrial

and Grigsby contend that this case is “widely distinguishable” from our opinion in

E&M Plumbing. In that case, the plaintiff’s counsel stated in his verified motion to

reinstate that “he inadvertently failed to record the March 24 [case disposition]

deadline in his calendar, so the deadline passed without [the plaintiff] filing a motion

to retain.” 2018 WL 3542916, at *3. We concluded that this explanation was

sufficient to establish that counsel’s failure to take action was an accident or mistake

and was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference.3 Id.

3
      On appeal, Just Industrial and Grigsby attempt to distinguish E&M Plumbing by
      arguing that the plaintiff “offered direct evidence, via its counsel’s verification, that
      it never received notice of the deadline,” but in this case it was undisputed that
      Burlington’s counsel “received both the Trial Reminder and Docket Call
      Reminder.” In E&M Plumbing, however, it was undisputed that the trial court
      notified the plaintiff of its intent to dismiss the case for want of prosecution by
      March 24, 2017, and that plaintiff’s counsel received this notice, but he failed to
      record this deadline in his calendar. E&M Plumbing Ltd. v. W. Houston Winnelson
      Co., No. 01-17-00601-CV, 2018 WL 3542916, at *1, 3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
      Dist.] July 24, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). The notice that plaintiff’s counsel did not
      receive was the notice that the trial court had signed an order dismissing the case on
      May 2, 2017. Id. at *1, 3. Counsel did not learn that the case had been dismissed
      until June 22, 2017, beyond the thirty-day deadline to file a motion to reinstate. Id.
      Counsel then immediately filed a verified motion to reinstate. Id. Counsel’s non-
      receipt of the dismissal order was relevant to whether counsel timely filed a motion
      to reinstate upon learning of the dismissal. There was not a question of whether
      counsel received notice that the trial court intended to dismiss the case because
      counsel undisputedly received that notice.
                                             15
      Here, Burlington stated in its verified motion to reinstate that “[d]ue to a

clerical error, Plaintiff did not attend the pre-trial conference on December 14,

2021.” Counsel then explained the clerical error, stating that Burlington “had local

counsel coverage set to attend the December 14, 2021 Pre-Trial Conference” along

with two summary judgment hearings in other Harris County courts. When the

summary judgment hearings were rescheduled, “counsel’s clerical staff

inadvertently removed this pre-trial conference from the calendar as well and did not

have any local counsel set to appear.” This explanation is not conclusory and is at

least as detailed as the explanation in E&M Plumbing, which we held sufficiently

established accident or mistake.4 See id.

      We conclude that Burlington’s verified motion to reinstate sufficiently

established that Burlington’s failure to appear at the docket call was an accident or

mistake and was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference. See TEX. R.

4
      Just Industrial and Grigsby also rely on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals’ decision
      in Henderson v. Blalock, 465 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015,
      no pet.), to support their argument that Burlington did not provide an adequate
      justification for its failure to appear at the docket call. In Henderson, the plaintiff
      filed a verified motion to reinstate after dismissal of the case, but the sole
      explanation for counsel’s failure to appear for trial was that “Plaintiff’s Attorney
      overlooked the trial setting.” Id. at 320. In holding that this explanation was not
      sufficient to support reinstatement of the case, the court noted that counsel
      “provided no evidence elaborating as to why counsel overlooked the trial setting or
      other contextual information, such as counsel’s business practices relating to court
      scheduling or circumstances on the day of trial.” Id. at 323. Here, however,
      Burlington’s counsel did provide contextual information relating to counsel’s
      failure to appear for the pretrial hearing. We conclude that Henderson is
      distinguishable from this case.
                                            16
CIV. P. 165a(3); Smith, 913 S.W.2d at 468; Dalmex, 455 S.W.3d at 244 (“Some

excuse, but not necessarily a good excuse, is enough to show lack of conscious

indifference.”). We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying

Burlington’s motion to reinstate and motion for reconsideration. See Mack, 627

S.W.3d at 394 (“A trial court abuses its discretion in denying a motion for

reinstatement when an attorney’s explanation for the failure to appear is

reasonable.”).

      We sustain Burlington’s sole issue.

                                   Conclusion

      We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings.

                                             April L. Farris
                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

                                        17