Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mohammed, Shabana J. v. Marriott International, Inc.
Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-12-00818-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; July 15, 2013; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Shabana J. Mohammed's claims against Host Hotels Resorts, L.P. and Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. for want of prosecution. Mohammed argued that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the dismissal and denying her motion to reinstate. The background involved Mohammed suing three entities, not parties to this appeal, for personal injuries sustained at a Marriott hotel two years prior. After various procedural developments, including the granting of an interlocutory summary judgment in favor of one defendant, Mohammed added Host and Marriott as defendants in late 2011. She failed to serve them until February 2012 and, on the eve of a scheduled March 2012 trial, non-suited her claims against another defendant, requesting a continuance due to lack of service on Host and Marriott. The trial court dismissed the case for want of prosecution on March 19, 2012, and later denied her motion to reconsider, which lacked substantial evidence regarding her efforts to prosecute the case. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's judgment. Mohammed argues that the trial court wrongly dismissed her case for want of prosecution and erred in denying her motion to reinstate. The court reviews such dismissals under an abuse of discretion standard, which applies similarly to the denial of motion to reinstate. A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily or without guiding principles. The authority to dismiss for want of prosecution arises from Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a and the court's inherent power, which allows for dismissal when a plaintiff shows a lack of diligence in prosecuting their case. In evaluating diligence, the court considers the entire case history, including time on file, activity level, trial settings, and reasons for delays. Mohammed acknowledges that a dismissal without prior notice is not reversible if a hearing occurs later. However, she asserts that she demonstrated good cause to maintain her case and acted diligently, citing delays in adding defendants due to statute of limitations concerns. Despite her claims, she did not address delays in serving Hyderabad or the two-month wait for citations on newly named defendants. At the reinstatement hearing, she failed to provide evidence explaining these delays. Given the record's unexplained delays and inactivity, the court found no abuse of discretion in dismissing her case and denying reinstatement. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ordering the appellees to recover their appeal costs from Mohammed.