City of Canton v. Lewis First Monday, Inc.
| Docket Number | 06-23-00027-CV |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Parties | CITY OF CANTON, Appellant v. LEWIS FIRST MONDAY, INC., Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Date Submitted: July 12, 2023
On Appeal from the 294th District Court Van Zandt County, Texas Trial Court No. 23-00020
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
The City of Canton, Texas, has filed an interlocutory appeal from orders entered by the trial court in favor of Lewis First Monday, Inc.[1] On appeal, the City argues that the trial court erred by denying its plea to the jurisdiction and entering a temporary injunction that failed to include a trial setting. Because we find that the City's plea to the jurisdiction should have been granted, we reverse the trial court's order denying the plea and vacate the temporary injunction.
This dispute revolves around access to the First Monday Trade Days (Trade Days), "one of the world's biggest flea markets," located in Canton, Texas, "through the 'Historic Main Gate,'" which is "owned by the City of Canton." Trade Days takes place "from the Wednesday before the first Monday of the month to the first Monday of the month." The real estate where vendors sell their wares during Trade Days "is owned primarily by two parties, Lewis First Monday, Inc. . . . and the City of Canton." Lewis acquired 9.8 acres of property on which Trade Days was held in 2009. After its 2009 purchase, "Lewis First Monday and its vendors continued to access their property by crossing property owned by the City of Canton."
It is undisputed that Trade Days brings countless visitors from all over the State to the area, leading to an unusual and increasing amount of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. At a regular meeting of the City Council on February 20, 2018, the Council considered traffic control issues on Trade Days grounds, including a complaint that "Lewis vendors were coming through the [Historic] Main Gate without passes and they would not stop for the gate attendants." Even so, it appeared that the matter was dropped for a time since no other minutes for 2018 or 2019 referenced the issue.
In early 2022, Lewis began "fear[ing] for the safety of its vendors and all of the pedestrian traffic crossing their property" and "placed a sign preventing traffic through the 9.8-acre property during the busy hours of 11 [a.m.] and 3 [p.m.]" to alleviate congestion. Maps included in the record illustrate the locations of the Lewis property, City property, and the gates at issue:
(Image Omitted)
In response to Lewis's sign closing off access to Lewis's property, the City's manager, Lonny Cluck, wrote the following letter to Lewis "on behalf of the City" on May 31, 2022, about Lewis's :
On October 18, 2022, in open session, the City Council voted to restrict access to the Historic Main Gate to City vendors during Trade Days. On November 10, 2022, Cluck notified Lewis of the Council's "official action at the October 18, 2022[,] City Council meeting." Cluck's letter said the Council "determined that ONLY those authorized to access the City of Canton [Trade Days] w[ould] be granted vehicular access to [the City's] grounds during the times that gates [were] manned for . . . Trades Days." Cluck represented that the action was "being taken in an effort to better protect the safety of [the City's] patrons who [were] shopping Canton [Trade Days] Grounds." Accordingly, Cluck wrote that "[v]ehicular access to [Lewis] Property, via City Property, [would] no longer be allowed."
On January 23, 2023, Lewis was granted a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDoT) permit to build a driveway "for vendors to get to locations at . . . Trade Days" from Highway 19. On January 30, 2023, Lewis sued the City. Lewis's second amended petition attached the documents referenced above and sought (1) a declaratory judgment that it had "an easement by estoppel" to the City's Historic Main Gate; (2) declaratory relief that the City engaged in a taking of private property in violation of Sections 2007.041 through 2007.045 of the Texas Government Code; and (3) a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, and permanent injunction preventing the City from locking the Historic Main Gate or depriving Lewis vendors from its use. The petition also asserted that the City had violated Article I, Section 17, of the Texas Constitution.
In response, the City filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The City's plea asserted, among other things, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Lewis's petition sought to challenge the City's ability to control its property in connection with governmental functions, including traffic control. Because Lewis had obtained a TxDoT permit "allowing it to construct a direct access point off of State Highway 19 onto [Lewis]'s property," the City also asserted that Lewis's "anticipatory concerns about access . . . [were] speculative and not ripe."
After a hearing, the trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction ordering the City to refrain from locking or disallowing Lewis's vendors through the Historic Main Gate or undertaking any other action that might discourage Lewis's vendors from using it.
In the City's first point of error, it argues that the trial court should have granted its plea to the jurisdiction on grounds of immunity. "Sovereign immunity bars suits against [the State and its agencies] unless there is a clear and explicit constitutional or statutory waiver of immunity." Dann v. Athens Mun. Water Auth., No. 12-07-00087-CV, 2007 WL 2460058, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler Aug. 31, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex. 1997), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004) (plurality op.)). "Governmental immunity" derives from sovereign immunity and "protects political subdivisions of the [S]tate, including [cities], from suit and liability." Catoe v. Henderson Cnty., No. 12-16-00259-CV, 2017 WL 1908645, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler May 10, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) ).
"Immunity from suit bars a lawsuit against [a State or political subdivision] unless the legislature has expressly consented to the suit." Dann, 2007 WL 2460058, at *1. "The legislature may consent to suit by statute, but such consent must be by clear and unambiguous language." Id. (citing Fed. Sign, 951 S.W.2d at 405). "A party suing a governmental entity must establish the [S]tate's consent, which may be alleged either by reference to a statute or to express legislative permission." Id. (quoting Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam)). "Absent such consent, the trial court does not have subject[-]matter jurisdiction." Id. (citing Jones, 8 S.W.3d at 638). "Because sovereign [or governmental] immunity defeats a trial court's jurisdiction, it is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction." Id. (citing Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004)).
"A plea questioning the trial court's jurisdiction raises a question of law that we review de novo." City of Canton v. Zanbaka, USA, LLC, No. 12-12-00006-CV, 2013 WL 3377436, at *1 (Tex. App.-Tyler July 3, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007)). When, as here, "a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause." Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004) (plurality op.) (citing Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993)).
"We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and look to the pleaders' intent." Id. Even so, "a plaintiff filing suit against a governmental entity must affirmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to...
To continue reading
Request your trial