Skelton v. Gray
| Decision Date | 02 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 04-22-00007-CV |
| Parties | Patricia SKELTON, Appellant v. Guy James GRAY, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas Trial Court No. 16416A Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa Justice Beth Watkins, Justice
Appellant Patricia Skelton appeals the trial court's dismissal of her suit for want of prosecution. We reverse the trial court's order of dismissal and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
In 2016, Skelton filed a legal malpractice suit against appellee Guy James Gray, an attorney who represented Skelton in a 2007 criminal trial. In the criminal proceedings, Skelton appealed her conviction on, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel grounds. See Skelton v. State No 04-08-00720-CR, 2010 WL 2298859, at *4 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 9, 2010, pet. ref'd) (). We affirmed the conviction and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused Skelton's petition for discretionary review. See id. Skelton then applied for a writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court denied. See Ex parte Skelton, 434 S.W.3d 709, 716 (Tex App.-San Antonio 2014, pet. ref'd) (opin. on reh'g). In the habeas appeal, we reversed the trial court's judgment, granted habeas relief on ineffective assistance grounds, and vacated the criminal judgment against Skelton. Id. at 732-34.
In the malpractice case, Gray filed an answer, a jury demand, and a Rule 91a motion to dismiss. His motion to dismiss relied on the Peeler doctrine, which provides that convicted individuals may not sue their criminal-defense attorneys for malpractice unless they have been exonerated. See Peeler v. Hughes & Luce, 909 S.W.2d 494, 497-98 (Tex. 1995) (plurality op.). The trial court dismissed the malpractice case with prejudice in 2016. This court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the claim and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Skelton v. Gray, 547 S.W.3d 272, 276-77, 280 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2018) (), aff'd, 595 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. 2020). The Texas Supreme Court granted Gray's petition for review, affirmed our judgment, and remanded this case for trial. Gray v. Skelton, 595 S.W.3d 633, 636, 641 (Tex. 2020) (). The Supreme Court issued its mandate on March 26, 2020, returning jurisdiction over the malpractice case to the trial court.
After a year with no activity on the case, on March 18, 2021, the trial court sua sponte notified the parties of its intent to dismiss the case for want of prosecution based on Rule 165a and the Local Rules of Practice.[1] At the April 19, 2021 dismissal hearing, the trial court: (1) retained the case "until 10/30/21 on which date it shall be automatically dismissed"; and (2) ordered the parties to mediate by July 30, 2021. On May 13, 2021, Gray filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment; on June 7, 2021, Skelton filed a traditional motion for summary judgment. On July 27, 2021, the trial court denied both motions. On October 28, 2021, Skelton filed a motion asking the trial court to set the case for a jury trial in January or February 2022 and to refer the case to mediation.
On November 15, 2021, the trial court signed an order dismissing the case for want of prosecution. Skelton filed a notice of appeal and a verified motion to reinstate. In that motion, Skelton averred that Gray's counsel had "advised [Skelton's] counsel and the Court's coordinator that [he] was not available for a jury trial until 2022." In response, Gray's attorney swore, "I never said I had no availability in 2021." The trial court overruled by operation of law Skelton's motion to reinstate the case.
In her appellate brief, Skelton raises two issues. First, she claims the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for want of prosecution despite the parties' "demonstrated desire" to resolve the case via jury trial when juries were not available for civil trials due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, she argues the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set a hearing on her verified motion to reinstate.
Applicable Law and Standard of Review A plaintiff has a responsibility to prosecute a suit to an end with reasonable diligence, "failing which a trial court may dismiss for want of prosecution." In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d 532, 534(Tex. 2015) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). "A trial court's authority to dismiss for want of prosecution has two sources: Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and the trial court's inherent power." Dobroslavic v. Bexar Appraisal Dist., 397 S.W.3d 725, 727 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2012, pet. denied). Under Rule 165a(2), a trial court can dismiss a case "not disposed of within time standards promulgated by the Supreme Court[.]" Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(2); Dobroslavic, 397 S.W.3d at 727-28. Those standards require district courts to ensure, "'so far as reasonably possible,'" that non-family law civil cases in which a jury has been demanded are brought to trial or final disposition within eighteen months of the appearance date. In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 535(quoting Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.1(b)(1)). "At the dismissal hearing, the court shall dismiss for want of prosecution unless there is good cause for the case to be maintained on the docket." Tex.R.Civ.P. 165a(1); In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 535 (). The trial court also "has the inherent power to dismiss when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case with due diligence." Dobroslavic, 397 S.W.3d at 728. "This authority stems from the trial court's power to maintain and control its docket." Id. "To decide the diligence issue, trial courts consider the entire history of the case, including whether the plaintiff requested a trial setting, the amount of activity in the case, the passage of time, and the plaintiff's excuses for the delay." Id. at 729.
We review a trial court's order dismissing a case for want of prosecution for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 728. A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner or without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). With respect to factual matters, an abuse of discretion occurs only when the record shows "the trial court could reasonably have reached only one decision." Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992). "We may not reverse for abuse of discretion merely because we disagree with the decision of the trial court." Dobroslavic, 397 S.W.3d at 728.
Here the trial court's dismissal references its prior order that if the case was not "finalized" by October 30, 2021, it would be dismissed. When the court set the hearing that led to its prior order, it referenced "Rule 165a, Texas Rules of [C]ourt, and the Local Rules of Practice." We construe this as an invocation of Rule 165a(2) and the trial court's inherent authority. See Dueitt v. Arrowhead Lakes Prop. Owners, Inc., 180 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Tex. App.-Waco 2005, pet. denied) ().
Because more than eighteen months had passed since the Texas Supreme Court's mandate issued, this delay meets the prima facie standard for what is unreasonable in terms of prosecuting a case. Doss, 2017 WL 2124488, at *2; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(2) (). Because this delay gave rise to a presumption of abandonment, we must determine whether Skelton sufficiently explained the delay using well-established factors. In re Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 535; see also Dobroslavic, 397 S.W.3d at 729.
Whether plaintiff requested a trial setting. Skelton twice requested that the case be set for trial: on April 19, 2021 (at the dismissal hearing) and again on October 28, 2021 (in a motion).
The amount of activity in the case. Aside from some informal settlement negotiations, there was no activity in the case before the trial court's April 19, 2021 dismissal hearing. After that, the record reflects the following activity:
Approximately two weeks after Skelton filed her motion to set the case on the jury docket, the trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution.
The passage of time. The Texas Supreme Court issued its mandate returning the case to the trial court on March 26 2020; the trial court dismissed the case on November 15, 2021. The case was therefore on the docket for just under twenty...
To continue reading
Request your trial