Opinion
No. 05-07-01475-CV
Opinion Filed August 7, 2009.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. CC-07-08611-A.
Before Justices WRIGHT, O'NEILL, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Crown Asset Management, L.L.C. appeals the dismissal of its breach of contract lawsuit against appellee Angela Savage. In two issues, Crown asserts the trial court erred by dismissing its case for want of prosecution and by denying its motion for default judgment. We affirm the trial court's order.
Crown filed suit against Savage on June 2, 2007 for breach of contract. On June 8, 2007 the trial court set the case on the dismissal docket for October 5, 2007. Savage never answered or responded to discovery requests; therefore, on August 27, 2007 Crown filed a motion for default judgment.
The trial court sent a letter to Crown on September 6, 2007 advising it was returning the default judgment unsigned because of certain deficiencies. On October 5, 2007, the trial court dismissed Crown's case for failure to appear for a hearing or trial of which notice was had and for want of prosecution. This appeal followed.
These deficiencies included: (1) petition failed to give fair notice of the claim to defendant; (2) judgment relied on causes of action that were not adequately pleaded; (3) damages could not be accurately calculated, no written instrument attached to petition; (4) no evidence of sale and delivery of merchandise or performance of services; (5) no evidence that the amount of the account or price charged was in accordance with an express contract or was usual, customary and reasonable; and (6) no evidence of systematic record kept and supported by affidavit.
In its first issue, Crown argues the trial court erred by dismissing its case for want of prosecution. Crown does not challenge the other reason stated in the court's order for dismissal: "Failure to appear for a hearing or trial of which notice was had."
Rule 165a allows a trial court to dismiss a case sua sponte when a party seeking affirmative relief fails to appear for a hearing or trial of which it had notice or when a case is not disposed of within the time standards promulgated by the supreme court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1), (2); Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999). In addition, the common law vests the trial court with the inherent power to dismiss independently of the rules of procedure when a plaintiff fails to prosecute his or her case with due diligence. Villarreal, 994 S.W.2d at 630.
Generally speaking, an appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully support a complained-of ruling or judgment. Britton v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); see also Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Sisavath, No. 05-07-01391-CV, 2008 WL 4695491, at *2 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). If an appellant does not, then we must affirm the ruling or judgment. Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681. The reasoning is that, if an independent ground fully supports the complained-of ruling or judgment, but the appellant assigns no error to that independent ground, then we must accept the validity of that unchallenged independent ground, and thus any error in the grounds challenged on appeal is harmless because the unchallenged independent ground fully supports the complained-of ruling or judgment. Id.
The only evidence in the record indicating Crown failed to appear at a hearing for which it had notice is the trial court's dismissal order. However, Crown does not dispute or allege that the trial court erred by dismissing the case for failure to appear at a hearing, and our rules of appellate procedure preclude us from reversing a trial court's order for a reason that was not raised on appeal. See, e.g., Walling v. Metcalf, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam) ("We have held repeatedly that the courts of appeals may not reverse the judgment of the trial court for a reason not raised in a point of error."). Therefore, we overrule Crown's first issue.
Having concluded dismissal was appropriate, we need not address Crown's second issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1 (requiring appellate court to only address issues necessary to final disposition of appeal). To do so, would result in an impermissible advisory opinion. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993) (courts have no jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions).
We affirm the trial court's dismissal order.