Walker Cnty. ESD No. 3 v. City of Huntsville

• Decision Date: 07 December 2022
• Docket Number: 10-22-00009-CV
• Citation: 658 S.W.3d 807
• Parties: WALKER COUNTY ESD NO. 3; the Board of ESD No. 3; and the Officers & Commissioners of ESD No. 3, in Their Official Capacities, Appellants v. CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, Texas, Appellee
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

658 S.W.3d 807

WALKER COUNTY ESD NO. 3; the Board of ESD No. 3; and the Officers & Commissioners of ESD No. 3, in Their Official Capacities, Appellants

v.CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, Texas, Appellee

No. 10-22-00009-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco.

Opinion delivered and filed December 7, 2022

Anna J. Phillips, Brian Trachtenberg, Joseph Bryant, Greathouse Holloway McFadden Trachtenberg PLLC, Houston, for Appellants.

John J. Hightower, Allison S. Killian, Olson & Olson LLP, Houston, for Appellee.

Before Chief Justice Gray,^* Justice Johnson¹ , and Justice Smith

MATT JOHNSON, Justice

The City of Huntsville, Texas (the City) has sued Walker County Emergency Services District (ESD) No. 3 (the District), along with its officers and commissioners, for committing alleged ultra vires acts. The City seeks injunctive and declaratory relief in the underlying case. The District and its officers and commissioners moved to dismiss the City's lawsuit for lack of jurisdiction, which the trial court denied.

The District and its officers and commissioners bring this interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of their motion to dismiss. We will reverse and render.

Factual and Procedural Background

The City sued the District and its officers and commissioners on November 3, 2021, the day after voters of the District, along with voters residing in a territory to be annexed, approved the District's annexation of the new territory. According to the City, the new territory includes territory within the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ); however, the City has never consented to its ETJ being annexed by the District.

In its lawsuit, the City complains that ultra vires acts have been committed by the District and its officers and commissioners. The City alleges that provisions of Chapter 775 of the Health and Safety Code require the District to obtain the City's consent before territory in the City's ETJ may be annexed by the District and that annexation without the City's consent violates controlling statutes. See generally TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 775.001 –.306. The District and its officers and commissioners sought dismissal of the lawsuit in its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,² asserting that (1) the District and its officers and commissioners are immune from suit as a political subdivision of the state and (2) the City does not have standing to contest the results of the November 3, 2021 election approving the annexation. The trial court denied the District's and its officers’ and commissioners’ motion to dismiss, and this appeal ensued.

Issues

In three issues the District and its officers and commissioners complain that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. More specifically, the District and its officers and commissioners contend:

1. The trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the City's claims against the District because the District is protected by governmental immunity.

2. The trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the City's claims against the individual commissioners because the ultra vires exception to their immunity from such suits and claims does not apply in this case.

3. The trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the City lacks standing to bring an election contest under the Texas Election Code.

General Authority

This Court has jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order of a district court that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) ; see also Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu , 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–46 (Tex. 2007) (holding that section 51.014(a)(8) vests appellate courts with jurisdiction to consider interlocutory appeals of jurisdictional pleas brought both by governmental entities and by employees of such governmental entities who have been sued in their official capacities). A plea that questions a trial court's jurisdiction raises a question of law that we review de novo. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, filed 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). Whether a court has jurisdiction begins with an analysis of the plaintiff's live pleadings. See Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 226. The plaintiff has the burden to plead facts affirmatively showing the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction. See id. at 226–27. Vague and conclusory statements within a pleading are insufficient to support jurisdiction; otherwise, the jurisdictional inquiry would become meaningless. See Stephen F. Austin State Univ. v. Flynn , 228 S.W.3d 653, 660 (Tex. 2007). Mere unsupported legal conclusions do not suffice. See Creedmoor–Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Tex. Comm'n on Env't Quality , 307 S.W.3d 505, 515–16 & n.7 & n.8 (Tex. App.–Austin 2010, no pet.). In conducting our review, we construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff and look to the plaintiff's intent. Miranda , 133 S.W.3d at 226–27.

Issue Three

We begin by addressing the third issue in which the District and its officers and commissioners contend that the trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to the extent that the City has brought an election contest because the City lacks standing to do so. The City responds that it has not brought an election contest challenging the result of the election but an action seeking a declaration that the election is void because the District did not have the authority to order the election without obtaining the City's consent.

AUTHORITY

"An election contest is a special proceeding created by the Legislature to provide a remedy for elections tainted by fraud, illegality or other irregularity." Blum v. Lanier , 997 S.W.2d 259, 262 (Tex. 1999). "In an election contest, a district court's authority to act is limited to the subjects or grounds expressly or impliedly authorized by the election code." City of Granite Shoals v. Winder , 280 S.W.3d 550, 557 (Tex. App.—Austin 2009, pet. denied). A lawsuit seeking a declaration that the State or its subdivisions do not have the authority to hold an election is, however, not an election contest. See id. at 557–58.

DISCUSSION

The City's original petition asks among other requests for relief for a declaration that "the November 2, 2021 election held by [the ESD] was void and of no legal effect." The petition premises the City's claim that the election was void on the ground that the City did not consent to the annexation of municipal territory. The City's claim is therefore not an election contest. See id. We accordingly overrule this issue.

Issue One

In the first issue, the District contends that it is an entity protected by governmental immunity and, therefore, the trial court has no subject matter jurisdiction over claims by the City against the District. The City in its brief concedes that "[t]he City is no longer pursuing its claims against [the District] or the Board" and "is only seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the individual commissioners in their official capacity." We lack authority to render advisory opinions and the mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists. A controversy must exist between the parties at every stage of the legal proceedings, including the appeal. Williams v. Lara , 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001).

AUTHORITY

The District is a political subdivision of the state. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 775.031. Political subdivisions of the state are entitled to governmental immunity unless it has been waived. City of El Paso v. Heinrich , 284 S.W.3d 366, 369–70 (Tex. 2009). For the Legislature to waive the State's immunity, a statute or resolution must contain a clear and unambiguous expression of the Legislature's waiver of immunity. See Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor , 106 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tex. 2003). Absent the state's consent to be sued, a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. City of Dallas v. Albert , 354 S.W.3d 368, 373 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. Jones , 8 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. 1999) ). Therefore, if a governmental entity is sued without legislative consent, the trial court should grant the governmental entity's plea to the jurisdiction. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't v. Sawyer Tr. , 354 S.W.3d 384, 388 (Tex. 2011).

DISCUSSION

In response to the District's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the City argued that the District's governmental immunity was waived by the Legislature in section 775.031 of the Health and Safety Code, which states that an emergency services district (ESD) may "sue and be sued." See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 775.031(a)(4). "We interpret statutory waivers of immunity narrowly, as the Legislature's intent to waive immunity must be clear and unambiguous." Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia , 253 S.W.3d 653, 655 (Tex. 2008) (citing TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 311.034 ). The language "sue and be sued," standing alone, is unclear and ambiguous and, as such, does not amount to a waiver of governmental immunity. Tooke v. City of Mexia , 197 S.W.3d 325, 342 (Tex. 2006). We thus conclude that the Legislature has not waived the District's immunity from suit. See id. Furthermore, a suit seeking relief for ultra vires acts must be brought against the state actors in their official capacity, not against the governmental entity. See Heinrich , 284 S.W.3d at 373. The District, as a political subdivision of the state, is therefore entitled to and protected by governmental immunity, and the trial court lacks jurisdiction over the City's claims against the District. We sustain this issue.

Issue Two

In the second issue, the District's officers and commissioners contend that the City's claims that they committed ultra vires acts do not constitute an exception to...