Watson v. City of Southlake

• Decision Date: 19 September 2019
• Docket Number: No. 02-18-00143-CV, No. 02-18-00151-CV,02-18-00143-CV
• Citation: 594 S.W.3d 506
• Parties: James H. WATSON and Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, Appellee James H. Watson and Others Similarly Situated, Appellant v. City of Allen, City of Amarillo, City of Arlington, City of Austin, City of Balch Springs, City of Balcones Heights, City of Bastrop, City of Baytown, City of Bedford, City of Burleson, City of Cedar Hill, City of Conroe, City of Coppell, City of Corpus Christi, City of Dallas, City of Denton, City of Duncanville, City of El Paso, City of Elgin, City of Farmers Branch, City of Fort Worth, City of Frisco, City of Garland, City of Grand Prairie, City of Haltom City, City of Humble, City of Hurst, City of Hutto, City of Irving, City of Jersey Village, City of Killeen, City of League City, City of Little Elm, City of Longview, City of Marshall, City of Mesquite, City of North Richland Hills, City of Richland Hills, City of Roanoke, City of Round Rock, City of Tomball, City of University Park, City of Watauga, American Traffic Solutions, Inc., American Traffic Solutions, LLC, Xerox State & Local Solutions Inc., and The State of Texas, Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

594 S.W.3d 506

James H. WATSON and Others Similarly Situated, Appellant

v.CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, Appellee

James H. Watson and Others Similarly Situated, Appellant

v.City of Allen, City of Amarillo, City of Arlington, City of Austin, City of Balch Springs, City of Balcones Heights, City of Bastrop, City of Baytown, City of Bedford, City of Burleson, City of Cedar Hill, City of Conroe, City of Coppell, City of Corpus Christi, City of Dallas, City of Denton, City of Duncanville, City of El Paso, City of Elgin, City of Farmers Branch, City of Fort Worth, City of Frisco, City of Garland, City of Grand Prairie, City of Haltom City, City of Humble, City of Hurst, City of Hutto, City of Irving, City of Jersey Village, City of Killeen, City of League City, City of Little Elm, City of Longview, City of Marshall, City of Mesquite, City of North Richland Hills, City of Richland Hills, City of Roanoke, City of Round Rock, City of Tomball, City of University Park, City of Watauga, American Traffic Solutions, Inc., American Traffic Solutions, LLC, Xerox State & Local Solutions Inc., and The State of Texas, Appellees

No. 02-18-00143-CV

No. 02-18-00151-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Delivered: September 19, 2019

Russell J. Bowman, Scott A. Stewart, Bowman & Stella, Irving, for Appellant.

George A. Staples Jr., Wayne K. Olson, James Donovan, Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla & Elam, L.L.P., Fort Worth, for Appellees City of Southlake, City of Amarillo, City of Balch Springs, City of Balcones Heights, City of Bastrop, City of Baytown, City of Burleson, City of Corpus Christi, City of Denton, City of El Paso, City of Grand Prairie, City of Haltom City, City of Hutto, City of Irving, City of Killeen, City of League City, City of Longview, City of Marshall, City of Mesquite, City of North Richland Hills, City of Richland Hills, City of Round Rock, and City of Watauga.

Peter G. Smith, Victoria W. Thomas, Dallas, for Appellees City of Allen, City of Coppell, City of Duncanville, City of Farmers Branch, and City of University Park.

Robert Fugate, Deputy City Attorney; Cynthia Withers, Senior Assistant City Attorney, City Attorney’s Office, Arlington, for Appellee City of Arlington.

Ann L. Morgan, City Attorney; Meghan L. Riley, Chief, Litigation; John S. Langner, City of Austin-Law Department, Austin, for Appellee City of Austin.

Matthew L. Butler, Matthew C.G. Boyle, Irving, for Appellees City of Bedford and City of Hurst.

Darrell G-M Noga, Christopher A. Klement, Melinda F. Louque, Cantey Hanger LLP, Dallas, for Appellee City of Cedar Hill.

Eric C. Farrar, Scott Bounds, Olson & Olson, L.L.P., Houston, for Appellees City of Conroe, City of Humble, City of Jersey Village, and City of Tomball.

Christopher J. Case, Interim Dallas City Attorney; Stacy Jordan Rodriguez, Barbara E. Rosenberg, James B. Pinson, Assistant City Attorneys, City Attorney’s Office, Dallas, for Appellee City of Dallas.

Laetitia Coleman Brown, Gerald Pruitt, City Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, for Appellee City of Fort Worth.

Charles J. Crawford, Richard M. Abernathy, Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, P.C., McKinney, for Appellee City of Frisco.

Scott D. Levine, Baxter W. Banowsky, Banowsky & Levine, P.C., Dallas, Brad Neighbor, Kurt C. Banowsky, Office of the City Attorney, Garland, for Appellee City of Garland.

Edwin P. Voss, Jr., Brown & Hofmeister, L.L.P., Richardson, for Appellees City of Little Elm and City of Roanoke.

Thomas J. Williams, Ryan Paulsen, Haynes and Boone, LLP, Fort Worth, Matthew D. Stayton, Lars L. Berg, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP, Fort Worth, for Appellees American Traffic Solutions, Inc., American Traffic Solutions, LLC, and Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc.

Ken Paxton, Attorney General; Jeffrey C. Mateer, First Assistant Attorney General; Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General; Andrew B. Davis, Assistant Solicitor General, for Appellee The State of Texas.

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Birdwell, JJ.

OPINION

Opinion by Justice Birdwell Appellant James H. Watson challenges the constitutionality of the state and local laws that provided for automated red-light cameras. He sues on behalf of a putative class of citizens, seeking a declaration and injunction against enforcement of these red-light-camera laws, as well as the return of the fines that he and other citizens were assessed.

In this consolidated appeal, Watson contends that the trial court erred by granting pleas to the jurisdiction in favor of all but one defendant. While Watson's appeal was pending, the Texas Supreme Court addressed a nearly identical set of arguments against the constitutionality of red-light-camera laws, and it rejected the appellant's challenges on grounds of standing, immunity, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Garcia v. City of Willis , 593 S.W.3d 201, 206–12, , (Tex. 2019). Also while this appeal was pending, the Legislature undid the whole of the red-light-camera statute, repealing it and replacing it with a measure that generally prohibited the use of red-light cameras for traffic enforcement. Act of May 17, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 372, H.B. 1631, §§ 2, 6; see Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 707.020. Thus, following the guidance of Garcia , and accounting for the effect of the Legislature's repeal, we reject Watson's arguments and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2002, the Texas Office of Attorney General issued an opinion suggesting that under state law at the time, cities could not use red-light cameras to impose civil penalties. See Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. JC-0460 (2002). In 2007, the Legislature responded to that opinion by enacting chapter 707 of the transportation code, which authorized municipalities to establish, by ordinance, a system of red-light cameras and civil fines. See Act of May 16, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1149, § 1, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 3924 (former Tex. Transp. Code Ann. §§ 707.001 –.019). Under the former statute, participating municipalities could assess a civil fine of up to $75 for red-light violations, along with a late fee of up to $25 if payment was not timely made. Id. (former Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 707.007 ). If the penalty was not paid at all, the statute authorized the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the vehicle's registration. Id. (former Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 707.017(a) ). The statute provided that persons charged with violations could contest the penalty at an administrative hearing. Id. (former Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 707.014(a) ).

After the enactment of chapter 707, the City of Southlake adopted a red-light-camera ordinance, as did many other municipalities. Southlake's ordinance provided that violations were subject to a civil fine of $75, a $25 late fee, and additional fees if the violator's check was returned for insufficient funds.

On Halloween of October 2014, Watson, a resident of Louisiana, was cited for violating Southlake's ordinance. It is undisputed that Watson did not take advantage of his administrative remedies. Instead, he filed suit in district court. Watson alleged that he was not in the vehicle or even in the state of Texas at the time of the purported violation, and he did not give permission to whoever was driving his vehicle. Watson alleged that he nonetheless paid the $75 fine under duress, fearing that he would be assessed late fees, would be refused renewal of his registration, and would suffer damage to his credit score.

However, Watson did not simply sue Southlake for the return of his $75. Rather, Watson sought class certification and purported to sue on behalf of all others who had been affected by Texas's red-light-camera laws. To that end, Watson sued municipalities throughout Texas that had enacted red-light-camera ordinances. Watson also sued Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., the private company that administered Southlake's red-light-camera program, as well as three other similarly situated private administrators: American Traffic Solutions, Inc.; American Traffic Solutions, LLC; and Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. Finally, Watson's petition named the State of Texas as defendant for its role in enacting the unconstitutional enabling statute. In all, he sought the return of millions of dollars that had been, he said, wrongfully "fleeced" from citizens; he alleged an amount in controversy of well over a million dollars. Watson alleged several claims:

• unconstitutional takings;

• reimbursement of the civil fines;

• injunction prohibiting the government defendants from enforcing their red-light-camera laws;

• declaratory judgment that the red-light-camera laws were unconstitutional under several provisions of the Texas constitution; and

• claims for common law misrepresentation and deceptive trade practices violations against the private administrators.

Before long, many of the government defendants filed pleas to the jurisdiction. In its plea, the State of Texas argued that it was not involved in the issuance of Watson's fine, and Watson therefore lacked standing to bring claims against the State. According to the State, it was purely passive in the matter, and Watson had suffered a cognizable injury only at the hands of Southlake and Redflex—the entities which had issued his ticket. The State further reasoned that even if Watson had standing, his claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Many of the municipalities and private administrators voiced their own standing and immunity arguments. Other municipalities contended that Watson's claims were barred due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

On April 6, 2018, the trial court rendered two orders concerning the pleas to the jurisdiction, from which Watson appeals. In one order, the trial court granted Southlake's plea to the jurisdiction on the basis of immunity. Watson subsequently filed an accelerated interlocutory appeal of that order in appellate cause number 02-18-00143-CV.

In another order, the trial court granted pleas to the jurisdiction in favor of all defendants except Southlake and Redflex, reasoning that...