Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Steven J. Stringfellow sued Hamza Khan after Khan brought an eviction action against him. Stringfellow alleged that the eviction was retaliatory because he had withheld rent over Khan’s failure to repair a condition affecting an ordinary tenant’s health or safety. He sought statutory damages and a writ allowing him to re-enter the property to retrieve his possessions.
On November 20, 2024, the trial court ordered parties seeking affirmative relief to appear at a December 6 show-cause hearing and warned that failure to appear and show good cause would result in dismissal for want of prosecution. The court coordinator emailed the order to Stringfellow at his address on file. Stringfellow did not appear when the case was called, and the trial court dismissed it. He appealed ten days later without filing a motion to reinstate.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed. A Texas trial court may dismiss a case under Rule 165a when a party receives notice but fails to appear for a hearing or trial, and it also possesses inherent authority to dismiss when a plaintiff fails to prosecute with due diligence. Before dismissing on either ground, the court must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard.
The trial court provided both. Stringfellow did not challenge the adequacy of the hearing notice or explain his failure to appear; instead, his appellate brief argued only that his underlying claims had merit. The record also showed that he failed to serve Khan, seek retention of the case, attend the show-cause hearing, explain why dismissal was unwarranted, or move for reinstatement.
Because Stringfellow filed his notice of appeal within ten days of dismissal, he necessarily knew of the dismissal while he still had time to file a verified motion to reinstate. His failure to use that procedure waived any due-process complaint associated with the dismissal. Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Key Takeaways
- The asserted merits of a plaintiff’s claims do not, by themselves, establish that dismissal for want of prosecution was improper.
- A party who receives notice of a show-cause hearing but fails to appear risks dismissal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a.
- A party who learns of the dismissal within the 30-day reinstatement period but does not move to reinstate waives related due-process complaints.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that litigants must actively prosecute their cases and respond to court notices even when they believe their substantive claims are strong. After a dismissal for want of prosecution, promptly filing a verified motion to reinstate is critical because it gives the trial court an opportunity to determine whether the failure resulted from accident, mistake, or another reasonable explanation.