On January 14, 2016 a
Letter,Correspondence
was filed
involving a dispute between
Hatcher Armory, Llc,
Hatcher, Nathan,
and
Armory Dealer Management, Inc,
Houston Armory, Lp,
Houston Armory Technology Group, Llc,
Pace, William P.,
for Contract - Consumer/Commercial/Debt
in the District Court of Fort Bend County.
Preview
LAW OFFICE OF KEVAL PATEL, P.c.
19855 Southwest Freeway, Suite 330
Sugar Land, Texas 77479
Tel. (281) 313-5300 Fax. (281) 313-5305
June 29, 2022
Via Email and E-File
Honorable Tameika Carter
Email: 400de a tortbendcountytx.gor
Fort Bend County District Court 400th Judicial District Court
301 Jackson Richmond, TX 77469
RE: Reply to Plaintiffs Letter to the Court
Dear Honorable Tameika Carter.
Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no such thing as a “timely filed
motion for reconsideration.” There are timely filed motions to reinstate and timely filed
motions for new trial. In the present case. the Plaintiffs did not timely file their Motion for
New Trial in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
A motion to reinstate is timely filed if it is filed within thirty (30) days of the date
of the dismissal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). “A motion for new trial. if filed, shall be filed
prior to or within thirty days after the judgment or other order complained of is signed.”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b (emphasis added).
As the dismissal order was signed on January 20. 2022. all timely filed motions to
reinstate and motions for new trial should have been filed on or before February 19, 2022.
The court may not enlarge the period for taking any action under the rules relating to new
trials except as stated in these rules. Tex. R. Civ. P. 5. Therefore, the April 28 motion.
however it was styled. is not timely because it was filed more than 30 days after the January
20 dismissal.
Moreover. no extension of plenary power can be granted once the timely filed
motion to reinstate was denied. If Plaintiff's interpretation of the rules were accurate, then
a party could indefinitely extend plenary power by filing repeated motions for
reconsideration and motions new trial as long as they filed such motions within 30 days of
denial of the last denial.
This is not the law. and on this point the case of Morris v. Morris. 250 $.W.3d 119
(Tex. App.-Tyler 2003) is instructive. In that case. a final judgment was signed on
December 19. 2002. A motion for new trial was filed on December 23 and denied on
December 31. A second motion for new trial was filed on January 2. 2003, and granted on
February 18. 2003. The trial court was found to lack plenary power to sign grant the second
motion for new trial more than 30 days after the first motion was dismissed. Wrote the
Page | of 2
court of appeals:
Ifa motion for new trial is timely tiled by any party. the trial court has
plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct. or
reform the judgment until thirty days after all such timely-filed motions
are overruled. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 329b(e). Indeed. even though the
trial court cannot extend time to file the motion for new trial. it may
grant a new trial on the grounds stated in a late motion filed before the
court loses plenary power. See Moritz v. Preiss, 121 S.W.3d 715. 719-
20 (Tex. 2003). Thus. irrespective of whether Appellees’ second
motion for new trial was timely filed. the trial court still retained
plenary power to grant a new trial for only thirty days after it
overruled Appellees’ first motion for new trial. See id.; TEX.R. CIV.
P. 329b(e). In this case, the trial court's plenary power ended January
30, 2003. Therefore. the trial court acted outside of its plenary power
when it granted the second motion for new trial on February 18. 2003.
Consequently, we hold that the trial court's order of February 18. 2003
is void.
Plaintiff continually and wrongly relie on April 5 as the starting point for the end
of plenary power. This is patently incorrect. Regarding motions for new trial, the Texas
Supreme Court in Puckett v. Frizzell, 402 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.1966) noted that the appeal is
from the judgment. not from the order overruling the motion for new trial. A judgment of
dismissal is final for the purposes of an appeal and a motion to reinstate is ordinarily
accorded the legal effect of a motion for new trial. Hancock ¥. Gathright, 451_S.W.2d
591 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1970. no writ): Chicago R.L & P.R. Co. v. Southern Pacific
Co., 458 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [Ist Dist.] 1970. writ ref-d n.r.e.); Stuart v.
City of Houston, 419 S.W.2d_ 702 (Tex.Civ.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1967. writ refd
n.re.): 4 r, McDonald. Texas civil practice § 17.19 (1971)!.
Thus, all extensions of deadlines flow from the date of dismissal. not the date of
denial of the motion to reinstate. The starting point was January 20, when the dismissal
was entered. Accordingly. the court now lacks the power to change the outcome of this
case.
Sincerely.
V,
val Patel
' This is cited from the case Plaintiff incorrectly cited in their brief. Plaintiff attempted to cite Estate of
Bolton v. Coats. 608 S.W.2d 722 (1980) for the position that the dismissal was not a final order however
the case does not stand for this position
Page 2 of 2
Document Filed Date
June 29, 2022
Case Filing Date
January 14, 2016
Category
Contract - Consumer/Commercial/Debt
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
LAW OFFICE OF KEVAL PATEL, P.c. 19855 Southwest Freeway, Suite 330 Sugar Land, Texas 77479 Tel. (281) 313-5300 Fax. (281) 313-5305 June 29, 2022 Via Email and E-File Honorable Tameika Carter Email: 400de a tortbendcountytx.gor Fort Bend County District Court 400th Judicial District Court 301 Jackson Richmond, TX 77469 RE: Reply to Plaintiffs Letter to the Court Dear Honorable Tameika Carter. Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, there is no such thing as a “timely filed motion for reconsideration.” There are timely filed motions to reinstate and timely filed motions for new trial. In the present case. the Plaintiffs did not timely file their Motion for New Trial in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion to reinstate is timely filed if it is filed within thirty (30) days of the date of the dismissal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). “A motion for new trial. if filed, shall be filed prior to or within thirty days after the judgment or other order complained of is signed.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b (emphasis added). As the dismissal order was signed on January 20. 2022. all timely filed motions to reinstate and motions for new trial should have been filed on or before February 19, 2022. The court may not enlarge the period for taking any action under the rules relating to new trials except as stated in these rules. Tex. R. Civ. P. 5. Therefore, the April 28 motion. however it was styled. is not timely because it was filed more than 30 days after the January 20 dismissal. Moreover. no extension of plenary power can be granted once the timely filed motion to reinstate was denied. If Plaintiff's interpretation of the rules were accurate, then a party could indefinitely extend plenary power by filing repeated motions for reconsideration and motions new trial as long as they filed such motions within 30 days of denial of the last denial. This is not the law. and on this point the case of Morris v. Morris. 250 $.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2003) is instructive. In that case. a final judgment was signed on December 19. 2002. A motion for new trial was filed on December 23 and denied on December 31. A second motion for new trial was filed on January 2. 2003, and granted on February 18. 2003. The trial court was found to lack plenary power to sign grant the second motion for new trial more than 30 days after the first motion was dismissed. Wrote the Page | of 2 court of appeals: Ifa motion for new trial is timely tiled by any party. the trial court has plenary power to grant a new trial or to vacate, modify, correct. or reform the judgment until thirty days after all such timely-filed motions are overruled. See TEX.R. CIV. P. 329b(e). Indeed. even though the trial court cannot extend time to file the motion for new trial. it may grant a new trial on the grounds stated in a late motion filed before the court loses plenary power. See Moritz v. Preiss, 121 S.W.3d 715. 719- 20 (Tex. 2003). Thus. irrespective of whether Appellees’ second motion for new trial was timely filed. the trial court still retained plenary power to grant a new trial for only thirty days after it overruled Appellees’ first motion for new trial. See id.; TEX.R. CIV. P. 329b(e). In this case, the trial court's plenary power ended January 30, 2003. Therefore. the trial court acted outside of its plenary power when it granted the second motion for new trial on February 18. 2003. Consequently, we hold that the trial court's order of February 18. 2003 is void. Plaintiff continually and wrongly relie on April 5 as the starting point for the end of plenary power. This is patently incorrect. Regarding motions for new trial, the Texas Supreme Court in Puckett v. Frizzell, 402 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.1966) noted that the appeal is from the judgment. not from the order overruling the motion for new trial. A judgment of dismissal is final for the purposes of an appeal and a motion to reinstate is ordinarily accorded the legal effect of a motion for new trial. Hancock ¥. Gathright, 451_S.W.2d 591 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1970. no writ): Chicago R.L & P.R. Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 458 S.W.2d 234 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [Ist Dist.] 1970. writ ref-d n.r.e.); Stuart v. City of Houston, 419 S.W.2d_ 702 (Tex.Civ.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1967. writ refd n.re.): 4 r, McDonald. Texas civil practice § 17.19 (1971)!. Thus, all extensions of deadlines flow from the date of dismissal. not the date of denial of the motion to reinstate. The starting point was January 20, when the dismissal was entered. Accordingly. the court now lacks the power to change the outcome of this case. Sincerely. V, val Patel ' This is cited from the case Plaintiff incorrectly cited in their brief. Plaintiff attempted to cite Estate of Bolton v. Coats. 608 S.W.2d 722 (1980) for the position that the dismissal was not a final order however the case does not stand for this position Page 2 of 2