Court Opinion

ID: 9890741
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-15 07:15:05.122658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:11.995169
License: Public Domain

Order Vacated and Memorandum Opinion filed October 12, 2023.

                                       In The

                     Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                               NO. 14-22-00570-CV

 NEREYDA CALDERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF
 C.L. AND Z.L., MINORS; AND ELIDA LOMELI, INDIVIDUALLY AND
       AS NEXT FRIEND OF A.L. AND A.C., MINORS, Appellants
                                         V.

                   MARIO GIOBANNY TORRES, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 270th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 2017-09288

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellants Nereyda Calderon, individually and as next friend of C.L. and Z.L.
minors and Elida Lomeli, individually and as next friend of A.L. and A.C., minors,
(collectively, the Calderon Parties) appeal the trial court’s July 19, 2022 order
granting appellee Mario Giobanny Torres’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the July 19, 2022
order, the order is void and we must vacate it.
                        FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On February 9, 2017, the Calderon Parties sued Torres asserting tort claims
stemming from a car accident. On July 22, 2019, the trial court sent notice to all
parties that the Calderon Parties’ suit would be dismissed for want of prosecution
unless a meritorious default judgment was filed, or an answer was filed.1 The notice
further stated that if neither of those actions was taken, the Calderon Parties must
file a verified motion to retain showing good cause to retain the case or diligence in
prosecution to avoid dismissal. The deadline for complying with the court’s order
was September 20, 2019.

       On September 20, 2019, the trial court signed an order dismissing the case for
want of prosecution. On September 24, 2019, the Calderon Parties filed a document
titled, “Plaintiff’s Verified Motion to Reinstate,” in which the Calderon Parties
alleged they failed to comply with the trial court’s order due to their attorney’s
“calendaring error.” Despite the title of the document, the Calderon Parties’ motion
was not verified. Despite the lack of verification, on December 2, 2019, the trial
court signed an order granting the motion to reinstate.

       On June 10, 2022, Torres filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in
which she alleged the trial court lost plenary power over this case on October 20,
2019, 30 days after signing the order of dismissal. In Torres’s motion she alleged
that because the Calderon Parties’ motion to reinstate was not verified it did not
operate to extend the trial court’s plenary power to reinstate the case. The trial court
agreed and, on July 19, 2022, signed an order granting the motion to dismiss. This
appeal followed.

       1
          In 2018, the trial court issued similar notices, but the case was retained after the Calderon
Parties filed verified motions to retain.

                                                  2
                                       ANALYSIS

      In three issues the Calderon Parties challenge (1) the trial court’s July 19, 2022
order of dismissal; (2) the trial court’s September 20, 2019 order of dismissal, and
(3) the trial court’s failure to appoint an attorney ad litem for the minor children.
Torres asserts this court lacks jurisdiction except to declare the trial court’s July 19,
2022 order void because it was entered after the trial court lost plenary power.

      When a plaintiff’s lawsuit is dismissed for want of prosecution, the only
available remedy is a motion for reinstatement. See Jarrell v. Bergdorf, 580 S.W.3d
463, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.). Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 165a(3) requires a motion to reinstate be “verified by the movant or his
attorney.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3); see also Guest v. Dixon, 195 S.W.3d 687, 688–
89 (Tex. 2006). To satisfy this verification requirement, the motion for reinstatement
must either be verified or serve as the functional equivalent of a verified motion. See
Young v. Di Ferrante, 553 S.W.3d 125, 129–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2018, pet. denied). A motion to reinstate must be filed within thirty days of the date
the dismissal order is signed or within the period provided by Rule of Civil
Procedure 306a. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). If the plaintiff does not file a timely motion
to reinstate that satisfies the verification requirement, the trial court’s plenary power
expires 30 days after the date of the dismissal order. See McConnell v. May, 800
S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990); Butts v. Capitol City Nursing Home, Inc., 705 S.W.2d
696, 697 (Tex. 1986); Jarrell, 580 S.W.3d at 466.

      The Calderon Parties did not file a motion to reinstate that satisfied the
verification requirement within 30 days of the date the dismissal order was signed.
The Calderon Parties concede that their September 24, 2019 motion to reinstate,
though timely, was not verified. The Calderon Parties did not attach any affidavits
to their motion, and the motion is not the functional equivalent of a verified motion.

                                           3
See Young, 553 S.W.3d 125, 129–30. The trial court, therefore, lost plenary power
on October 20, 2019, 30 days after signing the order of dismissal. Tex. R. Civ. P.
329b(d). Because the trial court’s order reinstating the case was signed well after the
date it lost plenary jurisdiction, the December 2, 2019 order reinstating the case is
void. See B.Z.B., Inc. v. Clark, 273 S.W.3d 899, 904 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (order signed by trial court outside plenary power is void).

      Because the trial court lost plenary power on October 20, 2019, the July 19,
2022 order granting Torres’s motion to dismiss is also void and must be vacated.

      As to the Calderon Parties’ challenge to the September 20, 2019 dismissal
order and the trial court’s failure to appoint an attorney ad litem prior to dismissal,
we lack jurisdiction to review the trial court’s actions as the time to appeal that
decision expired in 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959
S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (if the plaintiff does not file a timely motion to reinstate
that satisfies the verification requirement, the deadline to file a notice of appeal is,
at most, 45 days after the date of the dismissal order, which includes the 30-day
deadline and a 15-day extension period). We overrule the Calderon Parties’ three
issues on appeal.

                                    CONCLUSION

      We conclude the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the December 2,
2019 and July 19, 2022 orders. Therefore, those orders are declared void and
vacated.

                                               /s/ Jerry Zimmerer
                                               Justice

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant.

                                           4