§ 11.056.Dismissal for Failure to Furnish Security

One sentence, and it is the enforcement behind the security order.

The court shall dismiss a litigation as to a moving defendant if a plaintiff ordered to furnish security does not furnish the security within the time set by the order.

The verb is "shall", so dismissal follows failure without further consideration. The court does not weigh the merits again or ask why the security was not posted; the discretion was exercised when the deadline was set.

The dismissal is confined to the moving defendant. Where several defendants have been sued and one obtained the order, the litigation continues against the others.

That produces a considered result in a multi-defendant case. Each defendant decides whether to move and bears the effort of proving the criteria, and each takes the benefit of what they obtained.

The section is what gives the security order its force. An undertaking a plaintiff could decline to provide would leave the defendant where they started, having proved the criteria for nothing.

Note what the section does not say. It does not state whether the dismissal is with prejudice, and nothing here bars a future suit — the chapter’s answer to repeated filing is the prefiling order, not a merits determination.

The practical effect is that the security amount decides the case as to that defendant. A figure the plaintiff cannot meet ends the litigation against them, which is why the amount and the deadline are the parts of the order worth contesting.