Amarillo Court of Appeals holds no jurisdiction exists under PIA unless university “refuses” to supply information
Texas Tech University v. Dolcefino Communications, LLC dba Dolcefino Consulting, 07-18-00225-CV (Tex. App. – Amarillo, December 4, 2018).
This is a Public Information Act (“PIA”) case where the Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction and held Texas Tech University properly complied with the PIA.
Dolcefino Communications, LLC (“Dolcefino”) requested various records from Texas Tech under the PIA. Texas Tech produced some but did not produce all the records requested. Dolcefino filed a petition for mandamus relief under Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321. Texas Tech filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was denied. Texas Tech appealed.
The Legislature has prescribed that all statutory prerequisites to suit are jurisdictional in suits against governmental entities. While the PIA waives immunity to a limited extent, the waiver is not all encompassing. Under the PIA, a requestor may file suit only upon showing that the governmental body “refuses to supply public information” or “refuses to request an attorney general’s decision.” Such are statutory prerequisites to suit. The lion’s share of Dolcefino’s requests at issue were deemed “withdrawn as a matter of law” by Texas Tech. Dolcefino do not respond in writing to the itemized statement of costs or provide a bond within the time period. Dolcefino did not (1) accept the estimated charges, (2) modify its requests, or (3) send a complaint to the attorney general. Dolcefino and Texas Tech did engage in what Dolcefino characterizes as a “back-and-forth” regarding the charges due. However, an ongoing parleying over price does not provide a basis for overriding the statutory scheme for responding to an estimate of charges. The request was properly considered withdrawn. The court also dismissed Dolcefino’s argument Texas Tech waived the withdrawal language since estoppel does not run against a governmental entity. Regarding the remaining portions of the request, Texas Tech asserts no responsive documents exist. However, a movant in a plea to the jurisdiction must assert and support with evidence the trial court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court analyzed the emails back and forth with Dolcefino where Texas Tech asserted it did not have certain specific documents. Dolcefino asserted the statements were conclusory and not competent evidence. The court held “[a]s sparse as this additional data may be, it nevertheless insulates Texas Tech’s reply from a potential attack as conclusory.” Texas Tech produced some evidence that it was not “refusing” to provide public information to Dolcefino. As a result, the plea should have been granted.
If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panelconsists of Chief Justice Quinn, Justice Campbell, Justice Parker. Opinion byJustice Parker. The attorneys listed for Texas Tech are Eric A. Hudson and EnriqueM. Varela. The attorneys listed forDolcefino are Michael K. Hurst, Julie Pettit, David B. Urteago, David Coale.
