Legal Document Formatting Tips

Cause NO. CC-*-*-D CHASE HARDING § IN THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW DEFENDANT § v. § NO.* TRENT HARDING PLAINTIFF § § § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S VERIFIED MOTION TO REINSTATE TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW, the Defendant, Chase Harding by and through the undersigned counsel, and hereby objects to Plaintiff's Verified Motion to Reinstate the case, and in support thereof states as follows: I. The Case Was Properly Dismissed With Prejudice: Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate is premised on the argument that the dismissal of the case with prejudice should be reversed, based on the assertion that the failure to finalize settlement or present dispositive orders was not due to conscious indifference or neglect. However, the dismissal with prejudice was appropriate, and Plaintiff's failure to take the necessary steps to finalize settlement by November *,* , time frame as outlined in the Final Disposition Notice that Plaintiff received on October *,* (see Exhibit B) This indicates a lack of diligence and a disregard for the orderly progression of the case. As this Court is aware, dismissals with prejudice are only granted after careful consideration of the party's conduct and the failure to move the case forward in a timely manner. As stated in the Rules of Civil Procedure *.*. The Court entered an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice on November *, * (see EXHIBIT A), based on the failure to finalize the settlement or submit dispositive orders within thirty (*) days of the settlement announcement on October *, *. The Court’s ruling in this matter, as stated in the order, was done pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule *.* , mandates that a case may be dismissed when no dispositive orders are presented within the prescribed timeframe. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure *.*, the failure to submit a dispositive order within thirty (*) days following a settlement announcement is grounds for dismissal. As the order explicitly states, “the Court presumes that counsel for the parties wish the Court to dismiss the instant case with prejudice with costs to be taxed against the party by whom incurred.” This dismissal was properly executed in accordance with the rules and should remain in effect, barring compelling evidence to the contrary. In Rainbow Home Health, Inc. v. Schmidt & Davis, P.C., * S.W.3d * (Tex. App. *), the court reinforced that when a case is not prosecuted with due diligence, the trial court is well within its discretion to dismiss the case with prejudice. II. Failure to Diligently Pursue the Case: Plaintiff’s Motion acknowledges that the case was dismissed due to failure to prosecute, specifically for failure to take certain required actions within the prescribed timeframe outlined by the court in the Final Disposition Notice(exhibit A) . While Plaintiff asserts that this failure was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference, the motion does not adequately explain why Plaintiff was unable to act despite ample notice and opportunity to do so. A party’s failure to prosecute a case within the prescribed time period is a serious matter and cannot be excused without a reasonable explanation or valid justification. The Plaintiff’s failure to take necessary action before the dismissal demonstrates a lack of diligence, which should not be excused. Under Rule 165a(*), a case may be dismissed for failure to prosecute if the party has failed to comply with the court’s deadlines or shown a lack of diligence. Plaintiff’s failure to finalize settlement or take other required actions demonstrates just such a lack of diligence, justifying the dismissal with prejudice. III. Inadequate Explanation for Delay in Service: Plaintiff claims that the failure to take action was due to difficulties in serving the Defendant. However, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient detail or evidence regarding the efforts made to effect service. The motion does not demonstrate that the failure to serve Defendant within the time frame was beyond Plaintiff’s control. A vague reference to "difficulty in service" does not satisfy the requirements under Rule 165a(*) or meet the burden of proof required to overcome a dismissal with prejudice. The Plaintiff must show that any delay was beyond their control and not due to conscious indifference or neglect. IV. Prejudice to Defendant: Reinstating this case would cause undue prejudice to the Defendant, who has already been subject to a prolonged period of uncertainty regarding the matter. Defendant has a vested interest in the closure and finality of litigation, which would be jeopardized by a delay in the proceedings. The Defendant is entitled to the benefits of procedural rules that promote fairness, timely resolution, and efficiency in the judicial process. Reinstating this action after a lengthy period of inaction would be detrimental to the Defendant's rights and interests. V. Plaintiff’s Lack of Good Faith Effort: Although Plaintiff states that the failure to act was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference, the motion does not provide convincing evidence of a good faith effort to remedy the failure prior to the dismissal. The Court should hold Plaintiff to the standards of diligence and accountability required under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 165a. A lack of good faith or purposeful delay should not be rewarded by reinstatement of the case. The motion fails to show any reasonable efforts to prevent the delay or to comply with the Court’s deadlines. VI. Request for Denial of Motion to Reinstate: Based on the above grounds, Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate be denied. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the case was dismissed in error or that the interests of justice require reinstatement. Dismissal for want of prosecution serves to prevent undue delay in the judicial process and should not be overturned without clear evidence of excusable neglect or compelling circumstances. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate, and for such other and further relief to which Defendant may be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted, Chase Harding Pro Se * Ferguson Rd Dallas Tx, * *-*-* Chaselharding@gmail.com , Chase Harding Pro Se * Ferguson Rd Dallas Tx,* *-*-* Chaselharding@gmail.com

Yes is my document formatted correctly

According to these rules

Give me examples of what I need to fix

Do it for me

Double space it for me and make me a final copy

Now fix my citations

And my subheadings and any thing else tgat needs fixing

Continue