dismissing their claims does not alter the meaning of the statute. In this case, St. Luke’s filed its motion to dismiss on January 23, 2004. The trial court conducted a hearing on that motion on February 3, 2004 and conducted an additional hearing on February 6 at appellant’s request. Appellant filed his motion for a grace period on February 5 and presented it to the trial court on February 6. Appellant’s motion was untimely because it was not filed before any hearing on St. Luke’s motion, and the trial court was not required to grant appellant a 30-day extension to file his experts’ reports. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant’s motion. See Strom v. Mem’l Hermann Hosp. Sys., 110 S.W.3d 216, 226 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Reardon, 14 S.W.3d 816, 819
holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion holding the immigration judges denial of a continuance request did not constitute an abuse of discretion holding that denial of discovery in habeas proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that denial of joinder motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion