Housing Authority of City of Harlingen v. Valdez
| Decision Date | 17 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-91-490-CV,13-91-490-CV |
| Citation | 841 S.W.2d 860 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF HARLINGEN, Appellant, v. Raquel VALDEZ and Elias J. Zamora, Appellees. |
Robert C. Sheline, Gibbon, Gibbon & Sheline, Harlingen, David Horton, Denver, Colo., for appellant.
Hector J. Villarreal, Edinburg, James A. Herrmann, Harlingen, for appellees.
Before NYE, C.J., and BISSETT 1 and FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, Jr., JJ.
This is an appeal by the Housing Authority of the City of Harlingen ("the Housing Authority"), plaintiff in the court below, from a dismissal of its petition for a declaratory judgment. We reform the judgment, and as reformed, affirm.
The question to be resolved is whether the court below erred as a matter of law in dismissing the appellant's declaratory judgment action for want of subject matter jurisdiction. We answer the question in the negative.
Raquel Valdez, an employee of the Housing Authority, filed suit against the Housing Authority, Elias J. Zamora and certain other named individuals on February 15, 1990. Suit was filed in the 107th District Court of Cameron County, Texas and was docketed as Cause No. 90-02-688-A. She sued to recover damages for sexual harassment committed by the defendant Elias J. Zamora ("Zamora"), the office manager of the Housing Authority and her supervisor. She alleged that Zamora made unwanted sexual advances toward her from about September 12, 1985, until about December 28, 1989, when Zamora's conduct became so obnoxious and repulsive that she was forced to leave her employment with the Housing Authority. She filed notice of a non-suit on June 8, 1990. The record does not reveal any further action in that case.
Thereafter, Raquel Valdez ("Valdez") filed a charge of discrimination with the Texas Commission on Human Rights ("the Commission") on June 11, 1990, wherein she claimed that she had been sexually harassed by Zamora. An uncontested affidavit from Hilaria Martinez, executive director of the Housing Authority, states that the Commission issued findings on November 30, 1990, of no reasonable cause to believe the allegations contained in Valdez's complaint, TCHR Complaint 1900495-S. The affidavit further states that Valdez filed a new suit, Cause No. 91-01-0261-E, against the Housing Authority on January 25, 1991, in the 357th District Court, Cameron County, Texas. The new suit alleges sexual discrimination and complains that the Housing Authority acted to harass and embarrass her after learning of her original complaint.
The Housing Authority filed its original petition for declaratory judgment on June 11, 1990. Valdez and Zamora were named as defendants. The petition was filed in the 107th District Court and was docketed as Cause No. 90-06-3342-A.
Valdez filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a plea in abatement seeking to dismiss the Housing Authority's petition for declaratory judgment, or to abate the action until the Commission made a ruling on her claim of sexual harassment. This pleading was filed on July 6, 1990. She alleged that the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction of the action for declaratory judgment because: 1) her claim was in the nature of a tort action and declaratory judgment actions are an inappropriate means to adjudicate a plaintiff's rights; 2) the petition failed to assert a primary legal right in the Housing Authority about which there was a case in controversy; 3) there was no primary legal duty on her part which had been breached to the detriment of the Housing Authority; 4) a declaratory judgment was inappropriate because it would not end the controversy; and, 5) a declaratory judgment was inappropriate because another proceeding between the parties, i.e., the Commission's administrative complaint was pending which might adjudicate the issues set forth in the petition.
The Housing Authority filed its first amended original petition on July 10, 1990. Its allegations therein are summarized, as follows: 1) Valdez requested medical leave of absence from her employment, but failed to furnish medical records as requested by it, and, consequently, it "has been unable to review her request;" 2) Zamora made certain demands concerning his employment with it, and when he was notified of the Housing Authority's intention to suspend him without pay pending resolution of the claim made against him by Valdez, he notified the Housing Authority that he intended "to contest the suspension without pay," and that because of the failure of Valdez to obey an administrative order, and of her refusal to be deposed, the Housing Authority "has been unable to proceed administratively concerning said demands;" and 3) following the questioning of Zamora by the executive director of the Housing Authority, after Valdez had accused him of sexual harassment, Zamora put Housing Authority on notice that "he intended to file an EEOC complaint."
The Housing Authority sought the following relief:
V.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment of the Court that it and its commissioners have no liability in connection with any of the matters, events and facts alleged in said EXHIBIT 'A', 2 or, in connection with, by virtue of, or arising out of the employment of the defendant by plaintiff.
VI.
The plaintiff further seeks declaratory judgment of the court in determining the rights, duties and status of the parties relative to the employment of defendants by Plaintiff, including but not limited to, whether defendant ZAMORA may properly be suspended without pay or terminated from his employment with plaintiff; whether or not defendant VALDEZ has abandoned her employment with the plaintiff and whether or not she is entitled to a continuation of medical health care employee benefits; and whether or not she is entitled to a medical leave of absence from her employment with plaintiff.
On August 15, 1990, after arguments by counsel for the parties were heard, the Honorable Gilberto Hinojosa, District Judge, granted both the plea to the jurisdiction and the plea in abatement from the bench. No written order was signed prior to the date that Judge Hinojosa left the bench. Later, the Honorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr., District Judge, signed an order on April 30, 1991, dismissing Cause No. 90-06-3342-A, the declaratory judgment action and abating the action.
After Judge Hinojosa orally granted the plea in abatement and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, and before Judge Euresti signed the written order of dismissal and abatement, the Housing Authority filed a motion entitled "Plaintiff's Motion for Reinstatement and For Trial Setting." This motion, which was filed on April 19, 1991, was opposed by Valdez. Both the motion and the opposition thereto were filed in Cause No. 90-06-3342-A, in the 107th District Court. The Housing Authority's motion reads in part:
[t]here is currently pending in the 357th Judicial District Court of Cameron County, Texas, a cause of action entitled 'RAQUEL VALDEZ VS. HARLINGEN HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ELIAS ZAMORA' and numbered 91-01-00261-E (hereinafter referred to as the '357th Judicial District Court' case). Said cause of action was filed on January 25, 1991, and involves the same parties and similar issues as the above entitled and numbered cause of action (herein referred to as the '107th Judicial District Court' case).
At the time of filing this Motion for reinstatement and for Trial Setting, Movant is also filed a Motion for Consolidation of Causes of Action in the 357th Judicial District Court, requesting that said Court enter an Order consolidating the 357th Judicial District Court case and the 107th Judicial District Court case.
The record does not show that the "Motion for Reinstatement and for Trial Setting" was ever presented to the court, or that the court ruled therein. However, as already stated, the petition for declaratory judgment was dismissed first by an oral pronouncement from the bench and later by formal order signed on April 30, 1991.
The Housing Authority's motions for new trial and to set aside the order of dismissal, filed on May 2, 1991, were denied by the judge of the 107th District Court by order signed on June 19, 1991.
The court below made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, as follows:
Raquel Valdez and Elias J. Zamora were employees of the Harlingen Housing Authority. Elias J. Zamora was Raquel Valdez's supervisor. He was in charge of the Section 8 Housing Program. Raquel Valdez claims that Elias J. Zamora sexually harassed her during the period November, 1988 through 1989.
The plaintiff Harlingen Housing Authority filed this action for declaratory judgment allegedly to determine its rights vis-a-vis defendant.
At the time that the plaintiff actually filed, there was pending before the Texas Commission on Human Rights a charge of discrimination by Raquel Valdez. The TCHR has primary jurisdiction over claims of discrimination and a charging party's administrative remedies should be exhausted prior to a court taking jurisdiction.
Therefore, at the time that this court's predecessor dismissed the Housing Authority's petition for declaratory judgment, this court did not have jurisdiction of the subject matter of the petition.
Other than the plaintiff's demand for a declaratory judgment involving the employment relationships which were the subject matter of defendant Valdez's administrative complaint, the plaintiff did not state any basis for a cause of action, therefore there is no basis in law or fact for maintaining this action.
The Housing Authority presents eleven points of error. It contends in its first nine points that the court below erred in dismissing its action for declaratory judgment for want of subject matter jurisdiction (first point) and erred in its finding of "no subject matter jurisdiction" to declare: 1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Farris (In re Williams)
...19-20. 273. Id. at 19. 274. Utica Lloyd's v. Mitchell, 138 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Housing Authority v. Valdez, 841 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied)). 275. E.g., Utica Lloyd's, 138 F.3d at 210; United Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Davis, 2019 U.S. Dist. ......
-
Reyna v. City of Weslaco
...v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 884 S.W.2d 530, 539 (Tex.App.--Texarkana 1994, no writ); see also Housing Auth. of Harlingen v. Valdez, 841 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). Declaratory relief is appropriate only to resolve justiciable controversies between parties; t......
-
M.M.O., In re
...causes of action against the appellants, it too requests an advisory opinion. See Housing Authority of the City of Harlingen v. Valdez, 841 S.W.2d 860, 866 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). We construe the remaining requests for declaratory relief set forth in items 1,2, and 5 a......
-
Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gideon Lamar Sanders Jr.
...of the courts.’ ” Utica Lloyd's of Tex. v. Mitchell, 138 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting Housing Authority v. Valdez, 841 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied)). Thus, “a party may not rely on the Texas [Declaratory Judgment Act] to authorize attorney's fees in a......
-
Texas commission on human rights act: procedures and remedies
...denied). Nor is declaratory relief available to determine disputes currently pending before a court. Hous. Auth. of Harlingen v. Valdez , 841 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied). Thus, an employer may not seek a declaratory judgment as to its liability to an employe......
-
Texas Commission on Human Rights Act: Procedures and Remedies
...denied). Nor is declaratory relief available to determine disputes currently pending before a court. Hous. Auth. of Harlingen v. Valdez, 841 S.W.2d 860, 864 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ Thus, an employer may not seek a declaratory judgment as to its liability to an employee for alle......
-
Table of cases
...Smith , 968 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.), §§6:4, 6:4.A, 30:3.B.1, 30:3.C.1, 30:6.B Housing Auth. of Harlingen v. Valdez , 841 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied), §18:8.B Housing Auth. of the City of Crystal City v. Lopez , 955 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App.—Austin......
-
Table of cases
...Smith , 968 S.W.2d 542 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.), §§6:4, 6:4.A, 30:3.B.1, 30:3.C.1, 30:6.B Housing Auth. of Harlingen v. Valdez , 841 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied), §18:8.B Housing Auth. of the City of Crystal City v. Lopez , 955 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App.—Austin......