Stacey D. Howard v. Jack v. Lowery, 05-15-01380-CV

Howard, an inmate, sued Lowrey in 2013 seeking money owed under a loan; Lowrey answered with a general denial and disputed damages.
Lowrey admitted owing $10,000 but denied actions entitling damages; Howard sought damages via interrogatories and motions for summary judgment.
Howard filed a traditional summary judgment motion; Lowrey moved to dismiss Howard's motion, arguing the loan was not due until exoneration and compensation by the State.
Trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution on November 10, 2014, without ruling on pending motions, and later reinstated the case after Howard's reinstate motion.
At trial preparation, Howard sought to compel appearance of a witness and filed writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum; the court again dismissed for want of prosecution due to Howard's nonappearance, despite his incarceration and request for a bench warrant.
Howard appealed, arguing lack of notice, denial of access to the courts, failure to hold a hearing on reinstate, and error in dismissal without ruling on motions; the court of appeals reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the dismissal for want of prosecution proper?	Howard argues dismissal without proper notice or hearing violated due process.	Lowrey would contend dismissal was proper under Rule 165a(1) for lack of prosecution after notice.	Abuse of discretion; dismissal improper due process.
Did the trial court err by not ruling on pending motions before dismissing?	Howard asserts access to court denied by dismissing without addressing motions.	Lowrey contends motions were ancillary to dismissal.	Abuse of discretion; court must rule on pending motions.
Was reinstate denial proper where Howard's nonappearance was due to incarceration and bench-warrant issues?	Howard's nonappearance was excusable given incarceration and lack of bench warrant ruling.	Lowrey would argue reinstatement discretionary and not warranted.	Trial court abused its discretion; reinstatement required.
Should the case be reinstated and remanded for further proceedings?	Reinstatement would allow merits-based resolution.	No prejudice to Lowrey from reinstatement.	Yes; reverse dismissal and remand for proceedings consistent with opinion.

Hutchinson v. Hutchinson, 299 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal and reinstate)
Reese v. Reese, 256 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (need for notice and hearing in 165a(1) dismissals)
Franklin v. Sherman Indep. Sch. Dist., 53 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001) (due process requirement for dismissal notices)
In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (inmate access to courts and reasonable procedures)
Thordson v. City of Houston, 815 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. 1991) (oral hearing required on timely motions to reinstate)
Kenley v. Quintana Petroleum Corp., 931 S.W.2d 318 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (reasonable explanation negates intent to dismiss)
Johnson v. Handley, 299 S.W.3d 925 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (implicit denial of motion does not preclude relief if justified)