City of Dallas v. Ruffin
| Decision Date | 28 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | 05-20-00646-CV |
| Parties | CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant v. REGGIE RUFFIN, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-11133
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein
The underlying proceeding arose from the July 4, 2019, towing impounding, and subsequent sale by the City of Dallas of two vehicles owned by appellee Reggie Ruffin. In this interlocutory appeal, the City appeals the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. We reverse the trial court's order and render judgment dismissing all claims against the City for lack of jurisdiction.
In 2019, Ruffin owned two vehicles: a 1988 Mercury Cougar and a 2005 Suzuki Forenza. On May 30, 2019, Dallas Police Department Officer Kashonda Copeland saw both vehicles parked on Exeter Avenue in Dallas. She tagged both vehicles with a notice sticker, which stated "WARNING This vehicle may be impounded if it is not removed within 24 hours." Officer Copeland did not have the vehicles towed and closed that incident report, however because when she returned after twenty-four hours, she found the vehicles had been moved. Officer Copeland and her partner noted on several occasions during the officers' regular patrol duties in June 2019 that the vehicles were parked at the same location on Exeter Avenue. On July 1, 2019, the City received a report from a citizen that the vehicles had been parked in front of her house for over a month without being moved. Based on that report and her own experience seeing the vehicles parked on Exeter Avenue, Officer Copeland tagged the vehicles with notice stickers on July 3, 2019. After twenty-four hours passed, Officer Copeland returned to Exeter Avenue and saw the vehicles were still parked on the street directly in front of the same house, and facing the same direction as they had been parked the day before. According to Officer Copeland's affidavit testimony, she had the vehicles towed because they had been left on Exeter Avenue for more than twenty-fours without being moved in violation of Dallas City Code section 28-84.
The City impounded the vehicles and held them until August 12 2019, when they were sold at auction. Before auctioning the vehicles, the City sent two certified letters to Ruffin informing him of the August 12, 2019 auction date. Ruffin received one of the certified letters on July 12, 2019, but the second certified letter was returned to the City unclaimed. Ruffin did not seek to recover his vehicles, and they were sold at the August 12, 2019 auction. The City no longer has possession of the vehicles.
Ruffin filed the underlying lawsuit on August 7, 2019, but did not serve the City until August 13, 2019, the day after the City sold the vehicles. In his original petition, Ruffin asserted that his vehicles were not abandoned, and the City committed a "breach" by towing and impounding the vehicles. He sought an injunction to prevent the City from selling the vehicles at the August 12, 2019 auction, and asked for the return of his vehicles and damages. The City filed its original answer, which contained a plea to the jurisdiction, special exceptions, and a general denial, on August 30, 2019. The City specially excepted to Ruffin's failure to allege a waiver of governmental immunity for any of his claims and failure to plead facts supporting a waiver of immunity for any of his claims. The City further specially excepted to Ruffin's inclusion of the Dallas Police Department as a party to the lawsuit. The City set its special exceptions for hearing on October 29, 2019. Ruffin filed his first amended petition on October 24, 2019. That petition, like his first, did not identify a waiver of the City's immunity from suit.
The trial court heard the City's special exceptions on October 29, 2019. The trial court granted the City's first special exception, finding that Ruffin failed to "plead a valid legislative or constitutional waiver of the City's governmental immunity and facts making the waiver applicable under Texas law." The trial court ordered Ruffin to amend his petition within twenty days.
Ruffin filed his second amended petition, the live pleading, on November 25, 2019. In it, Ruffin asserted three causes of action against the City. First, he asserted the City's seizure of his vehicle was unauthorized by law because the vehicles were purportedly not tagged by the City, the Mercury Cougar was not abandoned because it was operable, not left unattended, and not illegally parked, and the Suzuki Forenza was not abandoned, though its registration was lapsed. Ruffin next asserted an inverse condemnation claim. He maintained that the seizure constituted an unconstitutional taking because the seizure was committed "in violation of the city's [sic] own statute and without any statutory authority." Finally, Ruffin asserted a Section 1983 claim, arguing that the seizure violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Ruffin prayed for economic damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
In response to the second amended petition, the City filed an amended plea to the jurisdiction. In it, the City requested that Ruffin's claims be dismissed with prejudice for want of jurisdiction. The trial court heard arguments but received no additional evidence on the City's plea on May 22, 2020. The trial court denied the City's plea on June 10, 2020. This appeal followed.
"Governmental immunity generally protects municipalities and other state subdivisions from suit unless the immunity has been waived by the constitution or state law." Univ. of Tex. M.D. Anderson Cancer Ctr. v. McKenzie, 578 S.W.3d 506, 512 (Tex. 2019) (quoting City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 589 (Tex. 2014)). The purpose of a plea to the jurisdiction "is to defeat a cause of action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit." Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). Governmental immunity defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. Tex. Dep't of Parks &Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 224 (Tex. 2004); Arnold v. Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. at Dallas, 279 S.W.3d 464, 467 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.).
The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law, and we review the trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. City of Dallas v. Prado, 373 S.W.3d 848, 852 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2012, no pet.). The plaintiff bears the burden to plead facts affirmatively demonstrating that governmental immunity has been waived and that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Id. (citing State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007)). A governmental entity's plea to the jurisdiction can be based on the pleadings or on evidence. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226.
When 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. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226-227. We construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff and look to the pleader's intent. Id. If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency and the plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to amend. Id. If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend. Id.
When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties to determine if a fact issue exists. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227. The standard of review for a jurisdictional plea based on evidence "generally mirrors that of a summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(c)." Prado, 373 S.W.3d at 852 (quoting Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228). That is, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, indulging every reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Prado, 373 S.W.3d at 853. The burden is on the governmental unit as movant to meet the standard of proof. Id. If the evidence creates a fact question regarding the jurisdictional issue, then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the fact finder. Id. at 852-53. However, if the relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court rules on the plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law. Id. at 853.
In five issues, the City asserts its plea to the jurisdiction should have been granted. Ruffin did not file a brief in this Court. We address each issue raised by the City in turn.
In its first issue, the City contends it is immune from suit on Ruffin's claim that the seizure and auction of his vehicles were unauthorized by law. The City argues its plea to the jurisdiction should have been granted because Ruffin's live pleading did not identify a waiver of the City's immunity for this claim, Ruffin's claim is a conversion claim for which there is no waiver of the City's immunity from suit, and the evidence established that the City complied with the Transportation Code. We conclude the City's plea should have been granted as to the unlawful seizure claim.
First Ruffin's second amended petition fails to identify a waiver of...
To continue reading
Request your trial