Appellant seeks to appeal from the trial court’s order concluding that the court had lost plenary power. After the trial court signed a final judgment dismissing the case for want of prosecution, appellant timely filed a motion to reinstate the case. Appellant claims that the trial court signed a written, ambiguous order that should be construed as granting appellant’s motion to reinstate. We conclude that the trial court did not decide the motion to reinstate by a signed written order within seventy-five days after the final judgment was signed. Therefore the motion was deemed overruled by operation of law, and the trial court lost plenary power thirty days later. Because the order from which appellant seeks to appeal is not an appealable order, we dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant/plaintiff Timothy May filed suit against appellees/defendants Guadalupe Nuno Gonzalez and RG Plumbing, Inc. (collectively the “Nuno Parties”) asserting negligence claims and seeking personal injury damages allegedly resulting from a motor vehicle collision that occurred in December 2017. Based on May’s failure to appear at a pre-trial conference, on August 8, 2022, the trial court signed a final judgment dismissing the case for want of prosecution. On that same date, May filed a verified motion to reinstate the case under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a, entitled “Plaintiff’s Verified Motion to Reinstate Case on Docket” (the “Motion”). May also submitted a proposed order for the trial court to sign. The proposed order did not contain any language ruling on the motion; instead, the proposed order reads in its entirety as follows: “IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff’s Verified Motion to Reinstate Case on Docket.” The Nuno Parties opposed the motion to reinstate and submitted a proposed order denying the motion. The trial court considered the Motion by submission, and on August 29, 2022, the trial court signed the proposed order submitted by May after adding a sentence to it ordering the plaintiff to pay $750 for failure to appear at the pre-trial conference (the “Order”). The trial court’s docket sheet describes the Order both as “Order Approving Stipulation Signed”[1] and as “Reinstatement on Court Order.” The docket sheet also reflects the following activity on August 29, 2022: “Motion to Reinstate Granted.” In February 2023, the trial court set the trial date for the two-week setting beginning on April 3, 2023. May then filed a supplemental expert-witness designation on February 14, 2023, as well as various pre-trial materials on March 30, 2023. On April 3, 2023, the trial court called the case to trial. May announced ready for trial. The Nuno Parties announced that they were not ready for trial and asserted that the trial court had dismissed the case for want of prosecution on August 8, 2022 and that the Motion had been overruled by operation of law under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a(3) because the Motion was not decided by a signed written order within seventy-five days. Though the trial court signed the Order, the Nuno Parties asserted that the trial court did not rule on the Motion because the Order did not state any ruling on the Motion. May responded that the Order is a written order signed by the trial court. May’s counsel asserted that he intended to file a proposed order that granted the Motion. The trial court stated that it intended to reinstate the case. The trial court gave the parties time to brief the issue of whether the trial court still had plenary power over the case. After the parties briefed this issue, on April 11, 2023, the trial court signed an order stating that the court’s plenary power over the case had expired 105 days after the case was dismissed for want of prosecution and directing the trial court clerk to close the case (“Closing Order”). Three weeks later May filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal from the Closing Order. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS On appeal May asserts that the trial court erred in issuing the Closing Order because (1) the language of the Order is ambiguous; (2) based on the totality of the circumstances the trial court’s intent was to grant the Motion; (3) the trial court should have construed the Order as granting the Motion; and (4) although Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 165a requires a signed, written order granting reinstatement, the Order is such an order. The Nuno Parties argue that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction over this case because May did not timely appeal from the trial court’s final judgment. The Nuno Parties assert that the Order does not comply with Rule 165a(3) and that none of the ambiguity cases cited by May involve Rule 165a. The Nuno Parties contend that under Rule 165a(3), the Motion was overruled by operation of law, and the trial court lost plenary power thirty days later. A. Was the Motion “decided by signed written order” under Rule 165a(3)? In its August 8, 2022 judgment, the trial court dismissed this case for want of prosecution. A motion to reinstate is the only remedy available to a party when the trial court has dismissed the case for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a; Young v. Di Ferrante, 553 S.W.3d 125, 128 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). May timely filed a verified motion to reinstate under Rule 165a. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). Under Rule 165a the trial court “shall reinstate the case upon finding after a hearing that the failure of the party or his attorney was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was due to an accident or mistake or that the failure has been otherwise reasonably explained.” Id. Rule 165a provides that “[i]n the event for any reason a motion for reinstatement is not decided by signed written order within seventy-five days after the judgment is signed, or, within such other time as may be allowed by Rule 306a, the motion shall be deemed overruled by operation of law.” Id. (emphasis added). Because May timely filed a motion to reinstate, the trial court had plenary power to reinstate the case until thirty days after the Motion was overruled, whether by a signed written order or by operation of law, whichever occurred first. See id. The time limits in Rule 165a are mandatory and jurisdictional. Walker v. Harrison, 597 S.W.2d 913, 915 Tex. 1980). Though courts generally may orally pronounce orders in open court, this rule does not apply in the Rule 165a context, in which the rule requires that the motion for reinstatement be decided by a signed written order. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a; Walker, 597 S.W.3d at 915. Absent the application of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a, which does not apply in today’s case, a motion for reinstatement is deemed overruled by operation of law if for any reason the motion is not decided by signed written order within seventy-five days after the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3). To satisfy this signed, written order requirement, the trial court’s signed written order must specifically rule on the motion. See Walker, 597 S.W.3d at 915–916; In re R.C.M., No. 2-09-080-CV, No. 2-09-347-CV, 2010 WL 1267759, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 1, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Montemayor, 2 S.W.3d 542, 546 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1999, orig. proceeding). The Order reads in its entirety as follows:
