In Arguelles v. Kaplan, 736 S.W.2d 782, 785 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1987, pet.ref'd n.r.e) the court treated the motion to reinstate, filed before dismissal was scheduled, as a motion to retain. However, the point of error in Arguelles addressed only the trial court's decision not to dismiss after giving notice of its intention to dismiss. The Arguelles court did not address the interpretation of the motion. Instead, it merely held that, "the dismissal or refusal to dismiss an action for want of prosecution is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his action will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of such discretion." Id. Under that standard, the trial court did not need a motion to retain or a hearing to retain the case on the docket. Rule 165a(3) provides that "a motion to reinstate shall set forth the grounds therefor and be verified by the movant or his attorney." TEX. R. CIV. P. 165a(3). The rule does not dictate the specific grounds the party should plead in the motion, nor does it require the motion to specifically state that the failure to respond was not intentional. See Gaylor v. Fluker, 843 S.W.2d 234, 236 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ). It is clear, however, that when a party files a motion to reinstate, the court must determine this issue at the hearing on reinstatement. See id.