Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Hinojosa
CONTRERAS, CHIEF JUSTICE 
petition for writ of mandamus, relator Ford Motor Company
seeks to compel the trial court to dismiss the underlying
case, a commercial dispute involving an automobile
dealership, for want of prosecution. We deny relief.
obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish
that an underlying order is a clear abuse of discretion and
that no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex.
2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the
burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery
Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.
abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's ruling
is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for
guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford
Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We
determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing
the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments.
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex.
2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. A trial court's erroneous
refusal to dismiss a case for want of prosecution cannot
effectively be challenged on appeal and the refusal is thus
subject to review by petition for writ of mandamus. In re
Conner, 458 S.W.3d 532, 535 (Tex. 2015) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam); In re Crawford, 560 S.W.3d
357, 365 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 2018, orig. proceeding).
trial courts are generally granted considerable discretion in
managing their dockets, the Texas Supreme Court has held that
a trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to grant a
motion to dismiss for want of prosecution "in the face
of unmitigated and unexplained delay." In re
Conner, 458 S.W.3d at 534. To decide whether a case has
been prosecuted with diligence, trial courts consider the
entire history of the case. Dobroslavic v. Bexar
Appraisal Dist., 397 S.W.3d 725, 729-30 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio 2012, pet. denied). A trial court generally will
consider four factors in deciding whether to dismiss a case
for want of prosecution: (1) the length of time the case has
been on file; (2) the extent of activity in the case; (3)
whether a trial setting was requested; and (4) the existence
of reasonable excuses for the delay. Najera v.
Martinez, 557 S.W.3d 846, 850 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2018,
no pet.); Henderson v. Blalock, 465 S.W.3d 318,
321-22 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). No
single factor is dispositive. Dobroslavic, 397
S.W.3d at 729.
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus, the response filed by Eddie Yaklin Ford
Lincoln, Inc., the reply, and the applicable law, is of the
opinion that the relator has not established its right to the
relief sought. Based upon the history of the litigation, the
activity in the case, and the grievous health issues suffered
by counsel, we conclude that the trial court acted within its
discretion in denying the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we
lift the stay that we previously imposed in this case.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(b) ("Unless vacated
or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective
until the case is finally decided."). We deny the
petition for writ of mandamus.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(d)
("When granting relief, the court must hand down an
opinion as in any other case," but when "denying
relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so."); id. R. 47.4