The Texas Court of Appeals has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Courtland Building Company, Inc. against Lozajo Investments, LLC, and others. The court ruled that Courtland failed to diligently prosecute its claims, leading to the dismissal of the case without prejudice. This ruling affects Courtland's ability to pursue its claims against the defendants, which include alleged breaches of a lease agreement.

The case, Courtland Building Company, Inc. v. Lozajo Investments, LLC, et al., was filed under docket number 04-25-00075-CV. The court's decision was delivered on November 10, 2026, by Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, with Justice H. Todd McCray concurring in judgment only, and Justice Velia J. Meza concurring and dissenting.

Background

The dispute began when Courtland Building Company leased real property to ND2NO Network, an entity affiliated with Lori Hagee, on November 14, 2014. Courtland claimed that ND2NO Network, along with other defendants, failed to comply with the lease agreement, including not making required payments. In 2018, Courtland filed a lawsuit against the defendants, which led to various counterclaims and defenses, including laches and accord and satisfaction.

After several years of litigation, including a deposition of Hagee in February 2023, the case saw little activity until a dismissal notice was issued by the trial court in September 2024. The notice indicated that the case would be dismissed unless Courtland filed a motion to retain the case on the docket. Courtland filed such a motion on October 15, 2024, but the trial court denied it and dismissed the case on October 28, 2024.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the case, stating that Courtland did not demonstrate sufficient diligence in prosecuting its claims. Chief Justice Martinez noted, "The trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Courtland failed to diligently prosecute its claims." The court highlighted the lack of activity in the case for eighteen months following Hagee's deposition as a significant factor in its ruling.

Additionally, the court addressed Courtland's argument regarding the trial court's failure to hold a hearing on its motion to reinstate the case. The court found that Courtland waived its right to a hearing by not properly requesting one in accordance with local rules. The ruling stated, "A trial court does not abuse its discretion by failing to hold a hearing on a motion to reinstate where a movant does not call its motion to the trial court's attention through a request for hearing filed before it is overruled by operation of law."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Courtland Building Company, as it prevents the company from pursuing its claims against Lozajo Investments and the other defendants. The court's decision reinforces the importance of timely prosecuting claims in civil litigation. It serves as a reminder to litigants that they must actively manage their cases to avoid dismissal for want of prosecution.

The ruling also clarifies the procedural requirements for requesting hearings on motions in Texas courts. The court's emphasis on adhering to local rules highlights the necessity for parties to follow proper procedures to ensure their motions are heard.

What's Next

While Courtland can potentially appeal the decision to a higher court, details regarding any plans for further legal action were not available in the court filing. There are no related cases pending that were mentioned in the ruling.