Meyers v. JDC/Firethorne, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 08 June 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17–0105,17–0105
• Citation: 548 S.W.3d 477
• Parties: W.A. "Andy" MEYERS, Individually and in His Capacity as Fort Bend County Commissioner, Petitioner, v. JDC/FIRETHORNE, LTD., a Texas Limited Partnership, Respondent
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

548 S.W.3d 477

W.A. "Andy" MEYERS, Individually and in His Capacity as Fort Bend County Commissioner, Petitioner,

v.JDC/FIRETHORNE, LTD., a Texas Limited Partnership, Respondent

No. 17–0105

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued February 7, 2018

OPINION DELIVERED: June 8, 2018

Frederick D. Junkin, J. Mark Breeding, Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP, Kathryn E. Boatman, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Houston, Marcus D. Spencer, Randall W. Morse, Roy L. Cordes Jr., Salvatore P. LoPiccolo II, William H. Vidor, Fort Bend County Attorney's Office, Richmond, for Petitioner.

H. Dixon Montague, Catherine ‘Cathy’ B. Smith, Don C. Griffin Jr., J. Eric Pardue, Zachary J. Howe, Vinson & Elkins L.L.P., Houston, for Respondent.

Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we consider whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute between a land developer and a county commissioner. Because an individual county commissioner in Fort Bend County lacks legal authority to receive, process, or present a completed plat application to that county's commissioners court for approval, we hold that the developer has not shown a substantial likelihood that the injunction it seeks against the county commissioner will remedy its alleged injury, and thus, the developer does not have standing to pursue its claim for injunctive relief against the county commissioner. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' judgment and dismiss with prejudice the developer's claim against the county commissioner in his official capacity.

I. Background

JDC/Firethorne, Ltd. is the developer of Firethorne, a master-planned community on approximately 1,400 acres located within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Fulshear. The subdivision falls within Precinct 3 of Fort Bend County (the County), and W.A. "Andy" Meyers is the elected county commissioner for Precinct 3.¹ According to its pleadings, JDC/Firethorne began developing Firethorne in late 2003 or early 2004, and before January 2014, it obtained approval from the County for more than forty separate plat applications and construction plans for the Firethorne development.

The County's plat application and approval process for proposed subdivisions is governed by chapter 232 of the Texas Local Government Code and the Fort Bend County Regulations of Subdivisions. See generally TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §§ 232.002, .0025; Fort Bend County, Tex. Regulations of Subdivisions § 2.4–.6 (as adopted Aug. 27, 2002 and revised Sept. 9, 2003, Jan. 6, 2004, Aug. 24, 2004, & Apr. 26, 2005) (hereinafter Regulations of Subdivisions).² Both schemes require that the commissioners court of the county in which the land is located—here, the Fort Bend County Commissioners Court—approve a required plat.³ See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 232.002(a) ; Regulations of Subdivisions § 2.5(A). Local Government Code section 232.0025, titled "Timely Approval of Plats," states in relevant part:

(a) The commissioners court of a county or a person designated by the commissioners court shall issue a written list of the documentation and other information that must be submitted with a plat application. The documentation or other information must relate to a requirement authorized under this section or other applicable law. An application submitted to the commissioners court or the person designated by the commissioners court that contains the documents and other information on the list is considered complete.

....

(c) An application is considered complete when all documentation or other information required by Subsection (a) is received. ...

(d) Except as provided by Subsection (f), the commissioners court or the court's designee shall take final action on a plat application, including the resolution of all appeals, not later than the 60th day after the date a completed plat application is received by the commissioners court or the court's designee.

....(i) If the commissioners court or the court's designee fails to take final action on the plat as required by Subsection (d):

....

(2) the plat application is granted by operation of law ....

TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 232.0025. Section 2.6 of the County's Regulations of Subdivisions provides in relevant part:

A. The County Engineer shall issue a written list of the documentation and other information that must be submitted with a plat application.... An application submitted to the County Engineer that contains the documents and other information on the list will be considered complete.

....

C. An application is considered complete when all documentation or other information required ... is received....

D. Except as provided by (Section 2, 2.6 F.) , the County Engineer shall present a completed plat application, including the resolution of all appeals, to the County Commissioner' [sic] Court not later than the 60th day after the date a completed plat application is received by the County Engineer.

....

I. If the Commissioner' [sic] Court fails to take final action on the plat as required by (Section 2, 2.6 D.) .

1. the plat application is granted by operation of law; and

2. the applicant may apply to a District Court in the county where the tract of land is located for a writ of mandamus to compel the Commissioners' Court to issue documents recognizing the plat's approval.

Regulations of Subdivisions § 2.6. Thus, the County's Regulations of Subdivisions essentially track section 232.0025 as to the plat-application process, but the County has designated its county engineer as the official charged with receiving and processing plat applications. See id. § 2.6(A). The County has also added steps to the submission process laid out in section 232.0025. Compare id. § 2.4 and 2.6(D) with TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 232.0025. First, Section 2.4 of the Regulations of Subdivisions requires that both the county engineer and the drainage district engineer sign off on the plat and construction documents:

The final plat and the construction documents must be reviewed, approved and signed by the County Engineer and the drainage plans must be reviewed and approved by the Drainage District Engineer before the final plat is presented to Commissioners' Court [sic] for approval.

Id. § 2.4(B). Second, as referenced above, the county engineer is the official instructed to "present a completed plat application ... to the County Commissioner' [sic] Court." Id. § 2.6(D).

JDC/Firethorne claims that its process of successfully submitting plat applications for approval broke down between January 2014 and October 2014. During that time, JDC/Firethorne submitted to the County's engineering department plat applications and construction plans for eight sections of the Firethorne development, including for Firethorne West Sections 16 and 19. JDC/Firethorne contends that those applications were placed on "hold" in an effort to "extract a concession" from JDC/Firethorne that it must construct four lanes of West Firethorne Road, a road within the Firethorne development. JDC/Firethorne claims that Richard Stolleis, Fort Bend's county engineer, had previously acknowledged in an approved plat that JDC/Firethorne would construct only two lanes of West Firethorne Road. JDC/Firethorne alleges that it has received the required approval from the Fort Bend County Drainage District and the City of Fulshear.

After an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation, JDC/Firethorne filed this lawsuit seeking mandamus relief requiring Stolleis to "submit the completed plat application for Firethorne West Sections 16 and 19 to the Fort Bend County Commissioners Court" for approval.⁴ It is undisputed that the plat applications and construction plans for Sections 16 and 19 were submitted to Stolleis in May and June of 2014, but it appears that they have not been submitted to or approved by the commissioners court. JDC/Firethorne alleges that Stolleis's refusal to approve and submit the plat applications is ultra vires conduct for which he has "no legal or statutory authority and/or for which [he] refuse[s] to perform a purely ministerial act." JDC/Firethorne also seeks mandamus relief instructing the commissioners court to approve the plat applications submitted to Stolleis and a permanent injunction against the County and the Fort Bend County Commissioners Court, ordering them to "permit the commencement of construction" for Sections 16 and 19, "permit and facilitate the recording of the plats," and "be enjoined from taking any action that would interfere" with JDC/Firethorne's construction.

At issue in this appeal is the injunctive relief JDC/Firethorne seeks against Meyers. In its amended trial court petition, JDC/Firethorne alleges that Meyers "is inappropriately ... instructing the Fort Bend County Engineering Department to delay processing the Firethorne West Section 16 and 19 submitted plats and construction plans." JDC/Firethorne alleges that in making this instruction, Meyers "attempts to exact a concession (requiring JDC/Firethorne to construct all four lanes of West Firethorne Road) which is not an express, written requirement within the Fort Bend County Regulations of Subdivisions." JDC/Firethorne asks the trial court to issue a permanent injunction "directing that Fort Bend County Commissioner Andy Meyers cease and desist—in the future—from instructing the Fort Bend County Engineering Department to ‘hold,’ ‘delay,’ or otherwise impede plats and construction plans submitted by JDC/Firethorne to Fort Bend County for approval individually and in his capacity as a Fort Bend County Commissioner."

Meyers filed a plea to the jurisdiction claiming that JDC/Firethorne's suit against him in his official capacity was barred by governmental immunity.⁵ Meyers's plea challenged JDC/Firethorne's pleadings, asserting that "[c]ommissioners courts exercise general control over county roads" and thus he has discretion that precludes an ultra vires claim. Additionally, Meyers argued that the ultra vires exception to governmental immunity does not...