Pedro Bazan v. Diane Canales

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 24, 2006
• Docket: 13-04-00209-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-04-209-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

PEDRO BAZAN

, Appellant,

v.

DIANA CANALES, ET AL., Appellee.

On appeal from the 248th District Court

of Harris County, Texas.

DISSENTING OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Castillo

Opinion by Justice Castillo

Because I would hold that appellant Pedro Bazan has not shown error on the face of the record, an essential requirement of a restricted appeal, I respectfully dissent. ⁽¹⁾ See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1( c), 30; Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004) (Schneider, J. dissenting).

I. Background

The record demonstrates that the trial court ordered Bazan's counsel to submit an order after it heard evidence of damages and pronounced judgment in default. Over nine years later, and ten days after the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution, Bazan wrote a letter to the trial court requesting it to "sign final orders so this action can become final." In the same letter he notified the trial court that he had terminated his counsel's representation and was proceeding pro se. ⁽²⁾ He further apprised the trial court that he had requested the reporter's record so that Bazan could prepare the final orders, and, if the trial court had final orders before it, Bazan requested to review them before entry. The record shows that, as of the date of his restricted appeal, Bazan had not complied with the trial court's order to submit an order to memorialize the judgment.

II. Error on the Face of the Record

A. The Trial Court's Inherent Power to Dismiss

A trial court has the inherent power to dismiss a case. Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam); Burton v. Hoffman, 959 S.W.2d 351, 353 (Tex. App.-Austin 1998, no pet.). In the context of the record before us, dismissal for want of prosecution for failure to comply with a trial court's order is not an abuse of discretion. ⁽³⁾ See id. passim; Koslow's v. Mackie, 796 S.W.2d 700, 704 (Tex. 1990); Kutch v. Del Mar College, 831 S.W.2d 506, 509-10 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no writ) (holding that trial courts have the power to sanction parties for bad faith abuse of the judicial process not covered by rule or statute); see also Public Util. Comm'n v. Cofer, 754 S.W.2d 121, 124 (Tex. 1988) (recognizing the inherent power of courts to ensure an adversarial proceeding); Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398-99 (Tex. 1979) (recognizing that a court has inherent power "which it may call upon to aid in the exercise of its jurisdiction, in the administration of justice, and in the preservation of its independence and integrity").

The inherent judicial power of a court is not derived from legislative grant or specific constitutional provision, but from the very fact that the court has been created and charged by the constitution with certain duties and responsibilities. Id. at 398. The inherent powers of a court are those which it may call upon to aid in the exercise of its jurisdiction, in the administration of justice, and in the preservation of its independence and integrity. Id. In the exercise of its discretion, the trial court is not limited to considering only the specific violation committed but is entitled to consider other matters which have occurred during the litigation. See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985) (holding that, in exercising its discretion in choosing the appropriate sanction, the trial court is not limited to considering only the specific violation committed but is entitled to consider other matters which have occurred during the litigation); Smithson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tex. 1984). The power to compel compliance with valid orders incident to the administration of justice is fundamental, and closely related to the core functions of the judiciary. Kutch, 831 S.W.2dat 510.

In this case, Bazan filed suit on May 13, 1994. Four months later, a default judgment was pronounced on the question of liability. Five years later, a default judgment was pronounced on the question of damages and the trial court ordered Bazan to submit the order. Four years after that, Bazan had not complied with the trial court's order to submit an order. On this record, the trial court was entitled to find that Bazan's failure over a four year period to provide the requested order was one of willful disobedience or conscious indifference to its lawful order. See Mackie, 796 S.W.2d at 704. Thus, Bazan has not demonstrated error on the face of the record. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d at 848.

B. The Trial Court's Power to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

I conclude that the error is not shown on the face of the record on the question of due diligence. See id. When reviewing a judgment dismissing a case for want of prosecution, the primary issue is whether the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence. Veterans' Land Bd. v. Williams, 543 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. 1976) (per curiam). In evaluating diligence, a district court is entitled to consider the entire history of the case. MacGregor v. Rich, 941 S.W.2d 74, 75; State v. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d 507, 509 (Tex. 1984). Factors generally considered by the trial court before dismissing a case include (1) the length of time the case has been on file, (2) the extent of activity in the case, (3) whether a trial setting was requested, and (4) the existence of reasonable excuses for the delay. MacGregor, 941 S.W.2d at 75-76; Rotello, 671 S.W.2d at 509. A decision to dismiss for want of prosecution is fact-specific and should be based on an evaluation of all the circumstances of a case. Rotello, 671 S.W.2d at 509.

In this case, Bazan's case was on the trial court's docket for nine years without entry of a final judgment. On these facts, due diligence is not demonstrated. MacGregor, 941 S.W.2d at 75-76; Rotello, 671 S.W.2d at 509. Consequently, Bazan has not shown and error is not apparent on the face of the record before us. See Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d at 848.

C. Direct Appeal

On still another ground, I would hold that Bazan has not demonstrated he is entitled to a restricted appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 30; Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d at 848. Ten days after the complained-of dismissal order, Bazan filed a pro se letter requesting the trial court enter a final written order. I would construe the letter as a post-trial motion to modify. Home Owners Funding Corp. v. Scheppler, 815 S.W.2d 884, 887 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1991, no writ) (holding that we construe the rules liberally and look only to the effect if the instrument's request was granted). If granted, the requested motion would have resulted in a modified judgment. Thus, Bazan's post-trial motion is one contemplated by rule 329b. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b; Scheppler, 815 S.W.2d at 887 (citing Brazos Electric Power Co-op., Inc. v. Callejo, 734 S.W.2d 126, 128 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987, no writ)). The timely-filed post-trial motion specifically requests a modification of a judgment and, thus, extended the trial court's plenary jurisdiction. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(g). However, Bazan filed his notice of appeal 126 days after his timely-filed post-trial motion, beyond the trial court's plenary jurisdiction. See id.; In the Interest of K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 927 (Tex. 2005) ("A court of appeals has jurisdiction over an appeal if the appellant timely files an instrument in a bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction."). Because his direct appeal of the dismissal order is untimely, Bazan is not entitled to review by restricted appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 30; Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d at 848.

III. Conclusion

Because I conclude that Bazan has not demonstrated the requisites for review by restricted appeal, I respectfully dissent.

ERRLINDA CASTILLO

Justice

Dissenting Opinion delivered and filed

this 24th day of August, 2006.

1. To prevail on its restricted appeal, a party must establish that (1) it filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed, (2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit, (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and did not timely file any post-judgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004).

2. Bazan's letter to his counsel states, in part, "You have failed to prosecute this action in a professional manner or to communicate with me regarding this action."

3. The test for determining if the trial court abused its discretion is whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). If the trial court acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, it abuses its discretion. Loftin v. Martin, 776 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex. 1989); Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241-42; Kutch v. Del Mar College, 831 S.W.2d 506, 508 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no writ). The trial court does not necessarily abuse its discretion if under the same facts an appellate judge would decide the matter differently, or if the court commits a mere error in judgment. Loftin, 776 S.W.2d at 146; Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 242; Sw. Bell Tel. v. Johnson, 389 S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. 1965). This court will reverse a trial court's rulings if it abuses its discretion and the error is harmful. Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a); see generally Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931, 935-36 (Tex. App.- Austin 1987, no writ) (discussing the standard). A reviewing court cannot conclude that a trial court abused its discretion simply because, in the same circumstances, it would have ruled differently, or because the trial court committed a mere error in judgment. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson, 923 S.W.2d 549, 558 (Tex. 1995); Loftin, 776 S.W.2d at 146.