In re DISH Network Service L.L.C. and John Carter Young

No. 09-25-00479-CV · Court of Appeals for the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont · January 15, 2026 · No. 09-25-00479-CV

Summary

The Ninth Court of Appeals of Texas conditionally granted a petition for writ of mandamus challenging an order reinstating a personal injury case dismissed for want of prosecution. The court held that the timely motion to reinstate was unverified and therefore did not extend the trial court’s plenary power, while the later verified amended motion was filed after that power had expired. The court ordered the trial court to set aside the reinstatement order within thirty days.

Holdings

  1. An unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the trial court's plenary power beyond thirty days after the dismissal order is signed.
  2. A verified amended motion to reinstate filed after the trial court's plenary power expired does not extend that power or validate a subsequent reinstatement order.
  3. Mandamus is available to set aside a void reinstatement order entered after the trial court's plenary power expired.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether an unverified motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution extends the trial court's plenary power under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3).
  2. Whether a verified amended motion to reinstate filed after the trial court's plenary power expired can extend that power or support a valid reinstatement order.
  3. Whether mandamus relief is available to set aside a reinstatement order entered after the trial court's plenary power expired.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (11)

  • In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Mikooz Mart, No. 05-19-01355-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 10643, at **2-3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 9, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)(followed)
  • In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Dansby, 583 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • In re Southern Mgmt. Servs., No. 05-19-00653-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 6197, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 19, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)(followed)
  • McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
  • Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex. 1980)(followed)
  • In re Valliance Bank, 422 S.W.3d 722, 728-29 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.)(followed)
  • In re Statebridge Co., No. 14-25-00146-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 6130, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 14, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)
  • Trimble v. Muniz, No. 09-23-00212-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1504, at **1-3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Mar. 6, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…