[TX] How do I respond to a defendant who wants a case dismissed?

Lexi, Chatbot

I understand that you're in a time-sensitive situation with your case. Can you please provide the specific grounds the defendant is using to request dismissal with prejudice?

Lexi, Chatbot

Have you already filed any responses or motions related to this request in the Harris County District Court?

Lexi, Chatbot

Is there anything else the lawyer should know before I connect you? Rest assured they'll be able to help with your motion to dismiss.

Gurney P

Hello again! GurneyP here. I'll be happy to help. Were there more points to add?

I just ask because sometimes there's a word limit that cuts people off.

Gurney P

Ok, perfect. Thank you for laying out the details so clearly. Since you’re dealing with a Motion to Dismiss with prejudice under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.351 (the medical liability statute), and you have a hearing set, you’ll want a response that:

• Argues the case is not governed by 74.351 because of how the court has already classified it.
• Points out that the motion is premature or frivolous, given the scheduling order and pending arbitration/investigation.
• Preserves your right to proceed on your claims beyond medical negligence (e.g., intentional torts, discrimination).

Here’s a draft structure you can adapt for your Response in Harris County:

CAUSE NO. [insert]
[Your Name], Plaintiff
v.
[Defendant’s Name], Defendant

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPRC § 74.351

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, and files this Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice under CPRC § 74.351, and would respectfully show the Court as follows:

This Case Has Not Been Classified as Health Care Liability.
The Court has designated this matter as “Other,” and per docket order, expert designation is not due until September 10, 2025. Defendant’s motion incorrectly assumes this is solely a health care liability claim governed by Chapter 74, despite this Court’s designation and the pleadings raising intentional tort and discrimination claims.

Dismissal Under § 74.351 Does Not Apply.
Plaintiff’s claims extend beyond negligence and involve intentional homicide, physical assault, falsification of records, and racial discrimination. These are independent torts not subject to dismissal under CPRC § 74.351. See Loaisiga v. Cerda, 379 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. 2012).

Prior Non-Suit Narrowed the Claims.
The SNF defendants accused of medical malpractice were nonsuited on June 25, 2025. The remaining defendants are hospital staff, and the core allegations now concern intentional misconduct and civil rights violations, not mere malpractice.

Pending Proceedings Require a Stay, Not Dismissal.
This matter is also tied to ongoing JAMS arbitration and an active HPD homicide investigation. A stay, not dismissal, is the appropriate procedural step to avoid conflicting rulings.

Defendant’s Motion is Frivolous.
Defendant himself acknowledged in his Answer that “he still thinks this is a medical malpractice case,” demonstrating awareness that the Court has not so ruled. The attempt to shoehorn this case into Chapter 74 is an improper effort to avoid liability.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, order this matter stayed pending resolution of the related proceedings, and grant such other and further relief as justice may require.

Respectfully submitted,
[Your Name / Signature Block]

Next, file this response by tomorrow (electronically through Harris County’s e-filing system if you can), and be prepared to emphasize at the hearing:
This is not purely a medical negligence case.
Even if it were, dismissal under 74.351 is premature because expert designation isn’t due yet per docket order.
Your intentional tort and discrimination claims survive independently.

Does that help?