Scarbrough v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris County
Citation | 326 S.W.3d 324 |
Decision Date | 31 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 01-08-00792-CV.,01-08-00792-CV. |
Parties | Daphne SCARBROUGH, Appellant, v. The METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF HARRIS COUNTY, Appellee. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Amanda Peterson, William A. Taylor, Andy Taylor & Associates, P.C., Houston, TX, for Appellant.
Andrew M. Edison, Edison, McDowell, & Hetherington, L.L.P., Gene L. Locke, Andrews & Kurth, L.L.P., Johnny W. Carter, Neal S. Manne, Robert S. Safi, Susman Godfrey, LLP, Houston, TX, for Appellee.
Panel consists of Justices KEYES, SHARP, and MASSENGALE.
Appellant, Daphne Scarbrough, argues that the trial court erred in granting the plea to the jurisdiction of appellee, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). In seven issues, she argues that: (1) the trial court erred in finding that she had no standing to sue because METRO's "Contract With the Voters" provides standing to property-tax payers and referendum voters; (2) the trial court erred in finding that she had no standing because even petition-signers, who have significantly less at stake, have previously been found to have standing to sue METRO over its "Main Street" Line; (3) the trial court erred in finding she had no standing because it improperly focused on how she voted rather than on whether she voted; (4) the trial court erred in finding she had no standing by misinterpreting the requisites for taxpayer standing in a way that would make it impossible for anyone to sue METRO; (5) the trial court erred by refusing to abate its hearing on METRO's plea to the jurisdiction until after the fact finder resolved disputed fact issues; (6) alternatively, if the trial court was correct in granting METRO's plea to the jurisdiction, it erred in ruling that Scarbrough take nothing and should have dismissed her case without prejudice; and (7) alternatively, the trial court erred by refusing to provide Scarbrough an opportunity to replead prior to dismissal of her case.
We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Resolution 2003-93 (Aug. 28, 2003) ("Resolution 2003-93").
(Emphasis added.)
Exhibit A-4, referenced in Section 14, paragraph (b) of Resolution 2003-77, provided the details of METRORail Phase II. In pertinent part, it stated:
(Emphasis added.)
Finally, Exhibits A-8 and A-9, referenced in Section 14, paragraph (g) of METRO Resolution 2003-77, described the Commuter Line Components. Exhibit A-8 described the commuter line components, stating that they "generally consist" of "rail segments or lines, including associated vehicles and facilities," along U.S. 90A, U.S. 290, and "other commuter rail corridors within the METRO service area as are found to be feasible." This exhibit also contained the caveat that the "[f]inal scope, length of rail segments or lines and other details, together with implementation schedule, will be based upon demand and completion of the project development process, including community input." Exhibit A-9 was a "Transit System Plan" mapping the various lines discussed in Exhibit A-8.
The special election occurred on November 4, 2003, and voters approved the METRO Solutions Plan.
According to the affidavit of METRO's executive vice president, METRO's board of directors decided in 2007 to pursue light rail as the preferred transit mode for several of the lines discussed in the METRO Solutions Plan due to several factors, such as changes in the profitability of particular bus routes and in the availability of federal funding. This affected the Westpark segment of light rail lines connecting the Wheeler Station and the Hillcroft Transit Center authorized in the 2003 referendum. According to Scarbrough's pleadings, METRO currently plans to place a portion of that line in the center of the street on Richmond Avenue, where it will pass by Scarbrough's property.
On May 23, 2007, Scarbrough filed this suit against METRO as a voter who opposed the METRO Solutions transit systemplan in the 2003 referendum and as a residential property owner, commercial businesswoman and taxpayer in the City of Houston and Harris County, asserting claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and unconstitutional impairment of contract and alleging that METRO was improperly implementing the terms of the November 2003 referendum election.
Scarbrough contends that Resolution 2003-93, with its exhibits, including Resolution 2003-77 authorizing the referendum and its exhibits, constitutes a "clear and unambiguous contract" between METRO and the voters and taxpayers and that METRO has failed to comply with the Resolution. She states that Metro has entered into a contract calling for early construction activities, whereas Resolution 2003-77 provides that METRO may not undertake the construction of any new segment of Phase II of METRORail with proceeds of the obligations authorized at the Election "without first obtaining approval of the segment for federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holcomb v. Waller Cnty.
...a party’s claims and enter a judgment on the merits. Norwood , 418 S.W.3d at 578 ; Scarbrough v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cty. , 326 S.W.3d 324, 339 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied) ; Lane v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. , 905 S.W.2d 39, 42 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1......
-
Johnson v. Coppel
...Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444-45 (Tex. 1993); Scarbrough v. Metropolitan Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty., 326 S.W.3d 324, 331 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). Whether the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law that ......
-
Ellis v. Wildcat Creek Wind Farm LLC
...property values? Based on this record, it is impossible to tell. See, e.g., Scarbrough v. Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cty., 326 S.W.3d 324, 337-38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied); City of Anson v. Harper, 216 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, no pet.). Thus, the......
- TTHR, L.P. v. Guyden