In Re DISH Network Service L.L.C. and John Carter Young v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00479-CV
__________________

IN RE DISH NETWORK SERVICE L.L.C.
AND JOHN CARTER YOUNG
__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 457th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23-11-16385
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators DISH Network Service L.L.C. and John Carter Young (collectively

“DISH” or “Relators”) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Petition”)

complaining about the trial court’s November 7, 2025 Order Granting Plaintiff’s

Amended Verified Motion to Reinstate. Jessee Thompson (“Thompson” or “Real

Party in Interest”) filed a response.

Relators contend the trial court lacked plenary power to reinstate the case at

the time it signed the reinstatement order. According to the record before us, the

underlying case pertains to a personal injury lawsuit filed by Thompson against

1
DISH arising from a car accident that occurred in 2021. The lawsuit was filed by

Thompson in October of 2023.

On September 24, 2025, the trial court entered an Order of Dismissal in the

underlying lawsuit, dismissing the case for want of prosecution. On October 3, 2025,

Thompson filed a Motion to Reinstate but the motion was not verified. On November

5, 2025, DISH filed a response to the motion and argued the unverified motion to

reinstate did not extend the trial court’s plenary power which DISH argued had

expired thirty days after entry of the dismissal. On November 6, 2025, Thompson

filed an Amended Motion to Reinstate with a verification. On November 7, 2025,

the trial court entered an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Amended Verified Motion to

Reinstate.

Generally, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show the trial court

abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

“A trial court abuses its discretion by entering a void order, and the relator need not

establish lack of an adequate appellate remedy to obtain mandamus relief.” 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.) (citing In re Sw. Bell Tel.

Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding)). “Mandamus is an available

remedy to set aside a reinstatement order signed after the trial court’s plenary power

2
expires.” Id. at *2 (citing In re Dansby, 583 S.W.3d 838, 840 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2019, orig. proceeding); 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.)).

A party must file a motion to reinstate within thirty days of the judgment

dismissing the case for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). The motion

must set forth the grounds to reinstate, and the motion must be verified by the movant

or his attorney. See id. When a party fails to verify his motion to reinstate, the trial

court’s jurisdiction is not extended, and jurisdiction expires thirty days after the

judgment is signed. See McConnell v. May, 800 S.W.2d 194, 194 (Tex. 1990) (orig.

proceeding) (granting mandamus relief to set aside an order reinstating case more

than thirty days after dismissal on unverified motion). A reinstatement order entered

after the expiration of the time limits provided in Rule 165a is “void because the

court is without jurisdiction.” See Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tex.

1980); see also In re Valliance Bank, 422 S.W.3d 722, 729 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2012, no pet.) (when a trial court signs an order of reinstatement after its plenary

power expired, the order of reinstatement is void and of no legal effect).

In this proceeding, DISH argues the trial court did not have jurisdiction to

enter the November 7th Order reinstating the case because the original motion to

reinstate was not verified, the trial court’s plenary power was not extended, and the

3
order to reinstate was void when the trial court entered it more than thirty days after

entry of the order of dismissal for want of prosecution. We agree.

While it is true that Thompson filed an Amended Motion to Reinstate which

was verified, the amended motion did not extend the trial court’s plenary power. See

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.) (original motion to

reinstate was unverified and did not extend plenary power of trial court, and

amended motion which was verified was filed after the plenary power expired so the

trial court’s order reinstating the case was void).

Because the only timely filed motion to reinstate was not verified, it did not

extend the trial court’s plenary power beyond thirty days. See McConnell, 800

S.W.2d at 194; 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.) (“[A]n

unverified motion to reinstate does not extend the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction

beyond thirty days after the order of dismissal is signed.”); Owens v. Brock Agency,

Inc., No. 09-22-00336-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 3782, at *13 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont June 1, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“An unverified motion to reinstate

does not extend the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction[.]”); In re Valliance Bank, 422

S.W.3d at 728-29; see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). Accordingly, the trial court’s

order of reinstatement was signed and entered after its plenary power had expired,

4
and the order of reinstatement is void. See In re Valliance Bank, 422 S.W.3d at 728-

29.

We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and order the trial

court to set aside its November 7, 2025 Order Granting Amended Verified Motion

to Reinstate. The writ will issue only in the event the trial court fails to do so within

thirty days of the date of this opinion.

PETITION CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 29, 2025
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

5