Court Opinion

ID: 9681571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:52:49.242282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:34.494064
License: Public Domain

*322DUNCAN, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s judgment. I disagree, however, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this case.
Facts
The attorney whose signature first appears on Plaintiffs’ Original Petition is F. Franklin Honea of the law firm of Payne & Vendig. The record does not reflect that this designation of the plaintiffs’ attorney in charge was ever changed by written notification to the court and opposing counsel. Perhaps pursuant to Local Rule 13, the district clerk did not send Mr. Honea notice that the case was set on the dismissal docket.
Standard of Review
A ruling dismissing a case for want of prosecution is subject to an abuse of discretion standard on appeal. E.g., State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex.1984). To establish an abuse of discretion, the complaining party must demonstrate that the trial court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986). In the context of factual matters, the record must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one conclusion, and it reached a contrary conclusion. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.1992). With respect to questions of law, however, the trial court has no discretion. Id. at 840. “Thus a clear failure to analyze or apply the law correctly will constitute an abuse of discretion_” Id.
Failure to Comply With Rules 165a and 8
Rule 165a(l) provides that “[a] case may be dismissed 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(l) (emphasis added). Notice is thus a condition precedent to a dismissal for want of prosecution under Rule 165a. Rule 8 provides that “[ajll communications from the court ... with respect to a suit shall be sent to the attorney in charge.” Tex.R.Civ.P. 8 (emphasis added); see also Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(l) (requiring notice to “each” attorney of record). No local rule may vary the mandatory terms of Rules 8 and 165(a) or any other statewide rule of procedure. Tex.R.Civ.P. 3a(l).
In my view, the district court abused its discretion — committed an error of law — in dismissing this case when notice had not been sent to the plaintiffs’ attorney in charge pursuant to Rules 8 and 165a. I therefore concur in the majority’s judgment but not its reasoning.