Texas Supreme Court holds specific performance is available remedy under waiver of immunity for certain contracts


Hays Street Bridge Restoration Group v City of San Antonio, 17-0423 (Tex. March 15, 2019)

This is a breach of contract case where the Texas Supreme Court held the waiver of immunity found in TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE §§ 271.151–.160 (as it existed at the time the contract was executed) also applied to specific performance.

The Hays Street Bridge is a historic cultural landmark in San Antonio. In the 1980s, when the City closed the bridge and Union Pacific Railroad sought to demolish it, a group of citizens formed the restoration group to save the bridge. The City obtained a $2.89 million federal grant administered by the Texas Department of Transportation to fund restoration and the Restoration Group promised, through an MOU, to match any funds for restoration. Over the next decade, the Restoration Group raised and transferred to the City more than $189,000 in cash and arranged for significant in-kind donations.  However, in 2012, it adopted an ordinance authorizing the sale of the property to Alamo Beer Company as part of an economic-incentive package. The Restoration Group sued, alleging the transfer would breach the City’s promise in the MOU to use the funds for repair of the bridge. For its breach of contract claim, the Restoration Group sought only specific performance.  The trial court ordered specific performance, but the court of appeals reversed, holding the City was immune. The Texas Supreme Court granted review.

The Court, citing to its recent holding in Wasson Interests v City of Jacksonville (Wasson II), held the MOU was of a governmental nature and not proprietary. The MOU was made to support the City–State funding agreement for restoration of the bridge and revitalization of the surrounding area. Under the Wasson II four-part test, only the first factor (mandatory v discretionary) leans toward proprietary. As a result, the City maintains immunity unless waived. Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code “waives” the City’s immunity, but that waiver is limited by the provisions found in other portions of the Act. Section 271.153 limits damages, not remedies. Damages equates to money, and specific performance equates to equitable remedies. Since the waiver is not limited by §271.153 on the subject of specific performance, such relief is a remedy encompassed within the waiver.

If you would like to read this opinion, click here.  Opinion by Chief Justice Hecht.

1st District Court of Appeals holds section of Texas Water Code regarding sewer CCNs unconstitutional


City of Tyler v. Liberty Utilities (Tall Timbers Sewer) Corp., 01-17-00745-CV (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.], December 20, 2018)

This is a declaratory judgment case where the First District Court of Appeals in Houston held a provision of the Texas Water Code unconstitutional.

Liberty Utilities (Tall Timbers Sewer) Corporation provides retail sewer utility service in Smith County under a certificate of convenience and public necessity. The City of Tyler desired to provide sewer service in Liberty’s service areas. State law prohibited the dual service in the area, so the City went to the Legislature, which passed §13.2475 of the Texas Water Code.  This created an exception from the generally applicable law allowing the City to provide sewer service within its boundaries, even in Liberty’s service areas. Liberty then sued the City, successfully obtaining a declaratory judgment that §13.2475 is unconstitutional. The City appealed.

In this 21-page opinion, the court analyzed the constitutional prohibition against local laws under  Article III, Section 56 of the Texas Constitution. The court analyzed the legislative debate and the author’s stated intended purpose. The court determined the section was bracketed and intended to address Tyler and regulated its affairs as a local law. The court further determined none of the constitutional exceptions from the prohibition applied. “The City of Tyler’s legislative strategy to uniquely exempt itself from the operation of Water Code Section 13.247(a) was a violation of the Texas Constitution’s default preference for laws of general applicability and general prohibition of local laws.”  As a result, it held §13.2475 unconstitutional.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justice Keyes, Justice Bland, Justice Massengale. Opinion by Justice Massengale.

Contract for sale of waste water to golf course is a governmental function and no waiver of immunity exists for breach claim


City of Merkel v Copeland, 11-16-00323-CV (Tex. App. — Eastland, October 18, 2018). 

This is a governmental immunity/breach of contract claim where the Eastland Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction. 

The City entered into a contract with Tin Cup Country Club where the City would sell the waste (i.e. effluent) from the City’s waste water treatment plant with a minimum each year and a set amount per gallon. Tin Cup used the waste to water and fertilize the golf course. Copeland and Cully purchased Tin Cup and the contract.  The City later stopped providing water as the quality did not meet state requirements.  Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction which was denied. The City appealed. 

The court first determined the City was performing a governmental function, not proprietary.  While sale of waste is not a listed function, it is a required sub-component of the governmental function of water and sewer services. The City must get rid of the waste somehow under TCEQ regulations, so selling it is a reasonable means of fulfilling its overall function. The only waiver of immunity would be found in Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code relating to goods or services provided to the entity. Since the City was not purchasing anything (but selling) the issue becomes whether Tin Cup was providing a service. Under section 271.151(B), a contract for the sale of certain acre-feet of reclaimed water is subject to waiver, but that section did not exist when the contract was executed.  As a result, only subsection (A) applies. The contract was not a “service” and was not intended to be a service.  As a result no waiver of immunity exists. The plea should have been granted. 

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Bailey, Chief Justice  Grey (by assignment from Waco) and Wright (retired). 

City could not use Family Code legitimation to challenge standing in wrongful death case

City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energy v. Maria Del Rosario, 03-18-00107-CV (Tex. App. – Austin, July 3, 2018)

Jaime Membreno died in 2009 when he came in contact with one of the City’s overhead power lines while working on a construction job in Austin.  Membreno was a citizen of El Salvador. Jaime was never married to Maria. She asserts that after his death she gave birth to Jaime’s son in El Salvador where she lived.  She sued the City on behalf of her minor son under a premise-defect theory of liability. She claimed that the City “failed to use reasonable care to safely operate and maintain the electric distribution system and its overhead distribution lines and poles in particular.” The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction which was denied. The City appealed.

The City asserts to have standing to sue under the Wrongful Death Act, an illegitimate child must comply with the requirements of Texas Family Code §160.201(b), thereby establishing a father-child relationship. However, the Texas Supreme Court has previously held it is inappropriate to incorporate the requirements of the Family Code for legitimation into the Wrongful Death Act. Additionally, in order to try and establish a father-son relationship, Maria had a DNA test performed of Jaime’s brother. The decedent’s brother had a 99.8% chance that they are nephew and uncle. The brother swore that he had never engaged in sexual relations with Maria. Maria showed the birth certificate demonstrating Jaime was listed as the father and provided her own affidavit. The court held Maria marshaled proof from which the fact finder could conclude that the clear and convincing evidence showed that her child was the son of the decedent. The City asserted Maria also lacked capacity to sue, however, a lack-of-capacity challenge is not jurisdictional. As a result, the City’s plea was properly denied.


If you would like to read this opinion, click here. Panel consists of Justice Goodwin, Justice Field and Justice Shannon. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Shannon. The attorney listed for the City is Ms. Chris Edwards.  The attorneys listed for the Plaintiffs are Sean B. Swords and David C. Wenholz.

Developer’s asserted causal link between use of bulldozers and inability to timely sell lots is insufficient to establish waiver of immunity says 13th Court of Appeals


City of Weslaco v. Raquel Trejo and Roberto Trejo, 13-18-00024-CV (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, June 21, 2018)

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction in a Texas Tort Claims Act case where the 13th Court of Appeals reversed but remanded the case.

The Trejos began to develop land into a residential subdivision. The Trejos hired Rio Delta Engineering to develop plans and designs for the subdivision’s infrastructure. Before lots could be sold, essential services such as water and sewer would have to be designed, built, and approved by the City. The City elected to combine the sewer and water plans of the Trejos as well as another client of Rio Delta, the Apostolic Church. The Trejos alleged the City delayed the sewer extension unreasonably, costing them the ability to timely sell lots. The Trejos filed suit alleging that the City was negligent in managing the sewer construction project, which “involved the use of motorized vehicles.” The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was denied. The City appealed.

Because the Legislature has deemed sanitary and storm sewers to be a governmental function, immunity applies to the design allegations. The Trejos did not establish a waiver for such a claim.  No waiver exists for negligent training of personnel or supervisors. As to the claims for negligent operation of bulldozers, there must be a causal nexus between the operation or use of the motor-driven vehicle or equipment and a plaintiff’s property damage. This causal nexus is not satisfied by the mere involvement of vehicles or equipment, nor by a use that “does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible.” The Trejos “have drawn a thin thread of causation across the span of many years and several intermediary steps—the use of equipment led to the design flaws, which led to problems with the sewer, which led to construction delays, which led to the Trejos’ inability to sell houses in 2008, which led to the project’s insolvency in 2009, which led to the bank’s foreclosure—in an effort to link the use of motorized equipment to the underlying harm of foreclosure.”  Such is too tenuous to be a causal link. However, the court held the Trejos should be given the opportunity to amend so remanded the case.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justice Rodriguez, Justice Contreras and Justice Hinojosa. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rodriguez.  He attorneys listed for the City are Hector X Saenz and Charles S. Frigerio.  The attorney listed for the Trejos is Savannah Robinson.

Texas Supreme Court holds leasing of lakefront property is proprietary for purposes of beach-of-contract claim



Wasson Interests, Ltd. vs. City of Jacksonville,17-0198, — S.W.3d. — (Tex. June 1, 2018)

In 2016 the Texas Supreme Court held the proprietary/governmental dichotomy applies in a breach of contact case. Summary found here. In this companion case, the Court held the contract was entered into as part of the City’s proprietary function and immunity is not implicated when the City leased lakefront property.

The City of Jacksonville constructed Lake Jacksonville in the late 1950s to serve as the City’s primary source of water. In the 1990s, the Wassons assumed an existing 99-year lease of lakefront property owned by the City of Jacksonville. The lease specifies, among other things, that the property is to be used for residential purposes only. After living on the property for several years, the Wassons moved and conveyed their interest in the lease to Wasson Interests, Ltd. (“WIL”). WIL then began renting the property for terms of less than one week, which the City asserted violated the terms of the lease.  This began a series of suits and opinions involving the parties.  In its 2016 opinion the Texas Supreme Court held the proprietary/governmental dichotomy applied to contracts and remanded the case to the trial court. In this appeal, the question is whether the City’s action of leasing the property was proprietary or governmental. The trial court held the actions were governmental and WIL appealed.

The City argued the function of developing and maintaining the lake was a governmental function. As a result, all aspects, including the leasing of land to tenants, is governmental. However, the Court went through several prior cases and indicated it is the action committed at the time (i.e. the lease contract) which counts in determining the proprietary/governmental purpose. “We hold that, to determine whether governmental immunity applies to a breach-of-contract claim against a municipality, the proper inquiry is whether the municipality was engaged in a governmental or proprietary function when it entered the contract, not when it allegedly breached …Stated differently, the focus belongs on the nature of the contract, not the nature of the breach. If a municipality contracts in its proprietary capacity but later breaches that contract for governmental reasons, immunity does not apply. Conversely, if a municipality contracts in its governmental capacity but breaches that contract for proprietary reasons, immunity does apply.” In making that determination, the court held “we consider whether (1) the City’s act of entering into the leases was mandatory or discretionary, (2) the leases were intended to benefit the general public or the City’s residents, (3) the City was acting on the State’s behalf or its own behalf when it entered the leases, and (4) the City’s act of entering into the leases was sufficiently related to a governmental function to render the act governmental even if it would otherwise have been proprietary.” After utilizing this test to the facts, the Court held the leasing of property is not essential or related to the waterworks operation. Merely because an activity “touches” upon a governmental function does not make it governmental in all things. As a result, it is proprietary in nature. The case is remanded for trial.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Opinion by Justice Boyd. The docket page for this case is found here.

Evidence of a shorted-out lift pump on one day, is not evidence of faulty motor driven equipment on a different day says 13th Court of Appeals



City of Edinburg v. GNJ Realty Investments LLC, 13-17-00290-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg August 22, 2017).

This is an interlocutory appeal in a Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”)/sewage backup case involving alleged negligent operation of a motor-driven lift pump. The 13th Court of Appeals reversed and rendered an opinion in favor of the City.

GNJ Realty Investments LLC (or “GNJ”) brought a negligence claim against the City of Edinburg (“the City”), for sewage backup and property damage allegedly caused by a City-owned faulty motor-driven lift pump. GNJ leased a building to RGV Footcare. On February 2, 2014, a RGV Footcare employee, saw standing water in almost every room of the building’s floors. She called a plumber soon after and called the City the next day. GNJ asserted negligence because it felt the City failed to use reasonable care in the service and maintenance of the motor-driven equipment used in the sanitation system.  It asserted the flooding was system backup and arose from this failure. The wastewater supervisor for the City testified that upon personal inspection, the manhole that gave sewer service to GNJ’s building showed no evidence that anything the City owned caused this incident. He further testified that if a lift pump can be faulty, certain alarms and logs would have been generated by the system. No such alarms or logs were created on that day, although a short was logged as occurring the following day.  The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction which the trial court denied. The City appealed.

The court held no evidence in the record indicated the pump was faulty and was directly linked to the flooding of GNJ’s building. As stated by the supreme court many times “arises from” must have a nexus between the operation and/or maintenance of the equipment and the damage sustained. The connection must be considerably more than just the involvement of property. The trial court was not presented with any evidence that any of the pumps at Lift Station 30 were clogged—fully or partially—on February 3, 2014. Moreover, that a pump “shorted out” the day after RGV Footcare experienced the water back up is alone not evidence that it was malfunctioning the day before. Given the record, the court reversed the trial court’s denial order and rendered judgment for the City. GNJ’s claim was dismissed.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel consists of Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa.  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa.  The attorney listed for GNJ is John Andrew Millin IV.  The attorneys listed for the City are Roberto D. Guerra and Ysmael D. Fonseca.

Home-rule city’s franchise contract and right-of-way ordinance trumps pro-forma provision in a tariff, so utility must bear costs of relocation


City of Richardson v Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, 15-1008 (Tex. February 2, 2018)

This case involves a dispute between a city and a utility over who must pay relocation costs to accommodate changes to public rights-of-way.

The City of Richardson (“City”) negotiated a franchise agreement with Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, (“Oncor”)  requiring Oncor to bear the costs of relocating its equipment and facilities to accommodate changes to public rights-of-way. Richardson later approved the widening of thirty-two public alleys. Oncor refused to pay for the relocation. While the relocation dispute was pending, Oncor filed an unrelated case with the Public Utility Commission (PUC), seeking to alter its rates. That dispute was resolved by settlement, but the settlement included Richardson passing a tariff ordinance. The Court had to decide whether a pro-forma provision in a tariff, which sets the rates and terms for a utility’s relationship with its retail customers, trumps a prior franchise agreement, which reflects the common law rule requiring utilities to pay public right-of-way relocation costs.

By nature, a franchise agreement represents the unique conditions a city requires of a utility in exchange for the utility’s right to operate within the city. Here, the Franchise Contract incorporated a conventional right-of-way ordinance (the “ROW Ordinance”) requiring the utility, upon written notice from Richardson, to remove or relocate “at its own expense” any facilities placed in public rights-of-way. The ROW Ordinance is typical of others throughout Texas. “Tariff” is defined as “the schedule of a utility . . . containing all rates and charges stated separately by type of service, the rules and regulations of the utility, and any contracts that affect rates, charges, terms or conditions of service.” 16 Tex. Admin. Code §25.5(131). A tariff filed with the PUC governs a utility’s relationship with its customers, and it is given the force and effect of law until suspended or set aside. However, the PUC’s rules also contain a “pro-forma tariff,” the provisions of which must be incorporated exactly as written into each utility’s tariff.  The City and Oncor sued each other over payment of the relocation costs, each citing the differences between the ROW Ordinance/Franchise Contract and pro-forma tariff. The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Oncor.

Under the common law, a utility’s right to use a city’s public rights-of-way is permissive and is subordinate to the public use of such rights-of-way. The Texas Supreme Court has traced this principal back at least as far as 1913.  The Utilities Code mirrors the common law, but specifically apply to “streets.”   Oncor argues that the Legislature’s use of “street” and not “alley” is significant and precludes these statutes from applying to alleys. Under statutory construction principles, every word included and excluded by the Legislature has significance. Looking to the statutory scheme, the Court found particularly relevant the Legislature’s recognition of the broad authority afforded to home-rule cities. As a home-rule city, Richardson has “exclusive original jurisdiction over the rates, operations, and services of an electric utility in areas in the municipality.” Furthermore, the Court held that in the context of home-rule cities, the recognition of a specific power does not imply that the other powers are forbidden. The  Legislature did not intended to strip municipalities of their common law right to require utilities to bear relocation costs. The language in the Tariff does not unmistakably address the relocation costs. The Tariff addresses Oncor’s relationship with end-users, which, in this case, dose not include the City.  As a result, the City retains the power to address costs through its ROW Ordinance and its Franchise Contract. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the judgment of the trial court.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. The docket page with attorney information can be found here.

City immune from suit for traffic light displaying “walk” signal at same time as green “turn arrow” says 13th Court of Appeals


City of Edinburg v. Melinda Balli  13-17-00183-CV (Tex.App–, Corpus Christi, November 9, 2017)

This is a Texas Tort Claims Act case where the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reversed the denial of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims.

Balli asserts she was struck by a vehicle as she used a crosswalk near the Hidalgo County Courthouse.  She asserts the pedestrian traffic light displayed a “walk” signal for pedestrians when she began to cross, however, the traffic light displayed a green arrow for turning vehicles, thereby causing the accident.  She asserts the City entered into a Municipal Maintenance Agreement with the State of Texas, in which the City undertook the duty “to make changes in the design and operation of the highway traffic signal(s) as it may deem necessary . . . .” and to provide and maintain traffic lights at various intersections. According to Balli’s petition, the City was aware of the problem with the traffic signals due to a similar collision on January 17, 2012. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing the lights were not malfunctioning, but were operating as designed by TxDOT to display a “walk” and a “turn arrow” at the same time. Vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians in the cross-walks. The trial court denied the plea and the City appealed.

Under the Texas Tort Claims Act (“TTCA”), the Texas Supreme Court has found a waiver of immunity “only in those situations in which the sign or signal was either (1) unable to convey the intended traffic control information, or (2) conveyed traffic control information other than what was intended.”  The term “condition” under the TTCA refers exclusively to “something ‘wrong’ with the traffic sign or signal such that it would require correction after notice.” Further, under the TTCA, a governmental entity remains immune from suits arising from its discretionary acts and omissions. The City asserts it assumed responsibility for the lights in 2012, and the City has not changed the lights’ programming originally inserted by TxDOT since that time. The City reasoned that because the lights “convey[ed] the intended traffic control information,” the traffic lights do not qualify as a wrongful condition of real property for which immunity would be waived. Based on testimony attached to the plea, the City utilized its discretion not to change the design or programming of the lights since they complied with TxDOT guidelines. Since the City established the lights were working as intended, Balli had the burden to negate that factual assertion. However, the only evidence Balli provides merely attacks the wisdom of that intent and the discretionary design choices, not the functioning of the lights. Balli has not produced any evidence that would create a fact issue concerning the existence of a “condition” in real property and waive immunity. The trial court should have granted the plea.

If you want to read this opinion, click here. The panel consists of Justices Rodriguez,  Benavides, and Longoria. Justice Rodriguez delivered the opinion of the court. To see the attorneys listed for the Appellant and Appellee click here.


Wrong-sized manhole cover was not a special defect holds Fort Worth Court of Appeals


City of Arlington v. S.C.,et al. 02-17-00002-CV (Tex. App. – Fort Worth, September 7, 2017)

This is an interlocutory appeal involving a jurisdictional challenge in a special defect case. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals, acknowledging the case law is murky, held the misplaced manhole cover was not a special defect.

S.C. and her family were moving into a neighborhood in 2015 when she stepped on a manhole cover which was the wrong size for its opening. She fell into the hole, injuring her pubic bone and groin, and spent six days in the hospital. She sued the City under both a special defect and, alternatively, premise defect theory. Her minor children plead bystander injuries.  The City filed a partial summary judgment only as to the special defect claim, which the trial court denied. The City appealed.

The Fort Worth Court of Appeals panel admitted the case law was inconsistent. The Texas Supreme Court lists a special defect as the same “kind or class” as an “excavation or obstruction” to ordinary users on or near a roadway. The court listed a series of cases finding a defective cover over a hole satisfies the excavation “class or kind” test; however, the plaintiffs in those cases lost because the defect was too far from the roadway to count. The court held to qualify an “excavation- or obstruction-like condition [must] be, if not in the roadway itself, at least awfully close—near enough for the ordinary roadway user to encounter it.” Achieving ordinary-user status requires “that someone be on or in close proximity to a roadway, doing the normal things that one might expect to do on or near a roadway, whether in some sort of vehicle or on foot.”  The court noted its prior circuit opinions have listed a distinction between an open excavation as being the cause of an injury and a defectively covered excavation as being the cause, although such an analysis is not always required. It noted Supreme Court precedent requires it to interpret a waiver of immunity narrowly. While the panel listed that hypothetical aspects might qualify, the individual facts of this case,  the circuit’s prior opinions and direction from the Texas Supreme Court require it to hold the manhole issue is not a special defect. It reversed the denial but remanded for trial as a premise defect case.


Photo provided in opinion and annotated during Plaintiff’s deposition.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. Panel includes Chief Justice Livingston, Justice Gabriel and Justice Kerr.  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr. The attorney listed for the City is Robert H. Fugate. The attorney listed for the Plaintiffs is Shelton Burgess Williams.

4th Court of Appeals holds developer properly pled breach of contract claim for wastewater development agreement


NBL 300 Group Ltd v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority 04-17-00264-CV (Tex.App— San Antonio, August 16, 2017)

This is an immunity/breach of contract case where the San Antonio Court of Appeals reversed the granting of Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority’s (“GBRA”) plea to the jurisdiction.

NBL was developing certain properties known as Legend Pond. As part of the development NBL and GBRA entered into an agreement for the construction of a “wet well” and “lift station” (wastewater systems). NBL was to provide and oversee/arrange for the engineering, design, and construction of various improvements to the properties. GBRA was to apply certain connection fees and charges to reimburse NBL for its initial outlay. After completion of the development, NBL sued GBRA asserting breach and a failure to implement connection rate measures. GBRA filed a plea to the jurisdiction which the trial court granted. NBL appealed.

For a contract to be subject to Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code §271.152’s waiver of immunity, it (1) must be in writing, (2) state the essential terms of the agreement, (3) provide for goods or services, (4) to the local governmental entity, and (5) be executed on behalf of the local governmental entity. Under the contract NBL was required to propose a master plan, including design, permitting, acquisition, and construction of the facilities. NBL was responsible for engineering and permitting fees. In return, GBRA was required to approve all plans and specifications and to establish, to collect, and to forward fees to NBL as reimbursement for monies expended.  The court held constructing, developing, leasing, and bearing all risk of loss or damage to the facilities provides a “service.” NBL plead the contract was for services and all other essential terms. GBRA asserts NBL still does not plead damages via money’s due and owed.  However, the court held NBL alleges that GBRA: (1) refused to perform obligations under the contract; (2) failed and refused to pay amounts owed under the contract; (3) failed to comply with its obligations under the contract; and (4) that the breach was material because GBRA did not substantially perform a material obligation required under the contract. No other specifics were provided. As for damages, NBL seeks loss of the benefit of the bargain, loss of investment opportunity, loss of fees, and attorney’s fees. Again, no specifics.  However, the court held from a pleadings standpoint, such allegations were sufficient to qualify as a properly pled petition. The plea should not have been granted.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. The panel includes Justices Barnard, Alvarez, and Chapa. Justice Alvarez delivered the opinion of the court. Attorney listed for NBL 300 Group is Rafael Pizana III. Attorneys listed for the Guadalupe – Blanco River Authority are Lowell F. Denton and Scott Michael Tschirhart.


Court held City immune from Plaintiff’s negligent implementation/premise defect claims due to discretion in ordinances


Lois Morgan v. City of Terrell, Texas 05-16-00554-CV (Tex. App— Dallas, August 15, 2017)

This is a premise liability/negligent policy implementation case where the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of the City’s plea to the jurisdiction.

Morgan sued the City after she fell on a sidewalk and alleged an unmarked ledge constituted a dangerous condition. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting the alleged “dangerous condition” was actually the design of the walkway, which is a discretionary function.  Morgan asserted the design was negligently implemented. The trial court granted the plea and Morgan appealed.

It is well settled that the design of a public work, such as a roadway, involves many policy decisions, and is a discretionary function. Likewise, the type of safety features to install on a public work is a discretionary function. While immunity can be waived if the claim is for the negligent implementation of the decision, such waiver must be tied to the execution and not the discretionary formation. Morgan claimed the City’s ordinances created a nondiscretionary duty to make the sidewalks safe.  However, Morgan did not include the ordinances in the record and did not request the court take judicial notice of the ordinances. Morgan has included in her brief “only the language of portions of provisions she has plucked from the Ordinance[s].” As a result, the court held the issues involving the ordinances were not properly before it.  However, even if it were, the selective provisions do not support Morgan’s position. The building code section states sidewalks “shall be set at a grade to provide for a certain slope range or as directed by the city engineer.” The court felt this language made clear the City made a policy decision to retain discretion to alter the specifications of sidewalks when needed.  Further, under the Neighborhood Integrity Code, whenever a sidewalk becomes dangerous, it is a public nuisance. However, those provisions state the chief building official “may” act to remedy the nuisance, but leaves the official with discretion to abate or not abate. As a result, nothing relating to a negligent implementation exists and everything points to the discretionary actions of the City. The plea was properly granted.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. The panel includes Justices Bridges, Myers, and Brown. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court. Attorneys listed for Lois Morgan are Richard Allan Stucky and Matthew J. Kita. Attorneys listed for the City are Peter G. Smith, Braden Metcalf, and Victoria Thomas.


U.S. 5th Circuit holds utility district’s federal loan could prevent City from expanding its CCN.


Green Valley Special Utility District v. City of Cibolo, TX, No. 16-5182 ( 5th Cir. August 2,2017)

In this case the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held the Green Valley Special Utility District (“Green Valley”) is entitled to go forward on it injunction to prohibit the City from encroaching on its system.

The Public Utility Commission of Texas (“PUC”) issues certificates of convenience and necessity (“CCNs”), which give holders the exclusive right to provide water or sewer service within particular service areas. Green Valley holds a CCN for water and a CCN for sewer services within a defined area. In 2003, Green Valley obtained a $584,000 loan from the United States to fund its water service. The loan was secured by the property within both Green Valley’s water and sewer systems.   In 2016 the City of Cibolo applied to the PUC for a CCN to provide sewer services to its citizens, which encompasses part of Green Valley’s CCN. To grant it, the PUC would have to strip Green Valley of part of its CCN.  Green Valley opposed the application and sued arguing federal law prohibited an alteration to its CCN due to its loan, specifically 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). The federal trial court dismissed Green Valley’s suit holding §1926(b) applied only to the system for which the loan was made (water), not the property used to secure the loan (water and sewer system).  Green Valley appealed.

The 5th Circuit noted this “is a tight question of statutory interpretation.”  Section 1926(b) prohibits the curtailment or limitation of “[t]he service provided or made available …” § 1926(b).   The dispute is over the meaning of “service,” which the statute does not define. Green Valley asserts it should apply to its “integrated” water-and-sewer service.  The City argued through the use of grammar aides that service applies only to the service funded. The 5th Circuit disagreed with the City’s arguments. Section 1926(b) has two purposes: “(1) to encourage rural water development by expanding the number of potential users of such systems, thereby decreasing the per-user cost, and (2) to safeguard the viability and financial security of such associations . . . by protecting them from the expansion of nearby cities and towns.” Green Valley’s interpretation is consistent with those purposes and not inconsistent with the wording of the statute. The order granting the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion is reversed and the case is remanded.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. The panel includes Circuit Judges Higginbotham, Smith, and Haynes. Circuit Judge Smith delivered the opinion of the court. Attorney listed for Green Valley is Mr. Paul M. Terrill, III. Attorney listed for the City of Cibolo is Mr. Lowell Frank Denton.


City waived immunity in breach of contract case for solid waste disposal services


City of Rio Grande City, Texas, and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in their Official Capacities v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley,04-15-00729-CV (Tex. App – San Antonio, September 21,2016)

This is an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction regarding a breach of contract claim arising from a solid waste disposal contract. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

In 2011, Allied entered into a contract with the City to be the exclusive provider of solid waste disposal services within the City’s limits through September 2018. In April 2015, the City notified Allied that it had failed to perform its obligations under the contract and also improperly billed the City for services Allied did not perform. According to the City, when Allied failed to cure the breach it terminated the contract. Allied contracted with Grande to take over solid waste disposal. Allied sued the City and Grande. Allied obtained a temporary restraining order prohibiting the City and its agents from taking actions inconsistent with Allied’s contract rights. The City counterclaimed, then removed the case to federal court. While the case was removed the City passed a resolution terminating the contract in an attempt to correct an alleged Texas Open Meetings Act problem. The federal court then remanded the case, sanctioned the City for improper removal, then the state trial court signed a second TRO.  The City filed a plea which the trial court denied.  The City filed this appeal as to the plea and TRO.

The court first held that Grande is not entitled to derivative governmental immunity. In Brown & Gay Eng’g, Inc. v. Olivares, 461 S.W.3d 117, 124 (Tex. 2015) the Texas Supreme Court noted governmental immunity was designed to guard against “unforeseen expenditures” associated with the government defending lawsuits and paying judgments “that could hamper government functions” by diverting funds from their allocated purposes. Immunizing a private contractor does not further this purpose. Further, the allegations against Grande interfering with an existing contract occurred prior to it obtaining the contract with the City, so immunity still would not apply for acts within that time period. Next the court held the allegations against the officials, in their official capacity, were sufficient to trigger an ultra vires claim.

As to the City, in order for the trial court to have jurisdiction over a contract claim asserted against a local governmental entity, the plaintiff must establish “a demand for certain kinds of damages” as limited by §271.153 of the Texas Local Government Code.  Allied requested the “balance due and owed” under the contract, which is recoverable under §271.153. Allied also requested additional damages, including actual and consequential damages, as well as pre- and post- judgment interest, costs of court, reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, injunctive relief, and declaratory judgment. Some of these additional damages are not recoverable under §271.153. Allied responds that the City waived immunity from breach of contract damages by filing counterclaims. That argument only applies to an offset for claims which are germane or connected with the counterclaims. Allied’s breach of contract claim and the City’s breach of contract counterclaim arise from the same facts and controversy.  As a result, the trial court has jurisdiction over the controversy. To the extent Allied requests declaratory judgment relief, Allied’s claims do not fall within the narrow waiver of immunity since the validity of an ordinance is not being challenged. Next the court held the claims brought under the Texas Open Meetings Act were not moot even after the City moved to correct any alleged mistake in the notice at a subsequent meeting. Allied also alleged the City’s actions were in violation of the contracts clause and Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. To prevent interference with its constitutional rights, Allied seeks only injunctive relief.  Since the constitutional claim is only seeking injunctive relief and not monetary damages, it is not barred by immunity. [Comment: This seems contrary to the line of cases noting a party cannot disguise a claim for monetary damages in a contract through equitable claims.] The court found Allied alleged a due process violation based on a constitutional contract claim.  However, Allied’s claim the City abused the removal process is not the same facts and controversy as the City’s counterclaims and does not fall under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Therefore, the declaratory judgment and abuse of process claims should have been dismissed, but all other claims can properly go forward.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. The Panel includes Justice Angelini, Justice Barnard, and Justice Pulliam. Justice Pulliam delivered the opinion of the court.  Attorneys listed for the City are Jacqueline LeFevre Salinas, Antonio Martinez and Brandy Wingate Voss. Attorneys listed for Allied are Gilberto Hinojosa and John David Franz.

Homeowners properly pled a taking by flooding due to channel reconstruction and temporary embankments says El Paso Court of Appeals



CITY OF SOCORRO, Texas v.  SAMUEL CAMPOS, et al, 08-14-00295-CV (Tex.App— El Paso, September 14,2016)

This is a takings/flooding case where the El Paso Court of Appeals held the Plaintiffs properly pled a takings case.

The residents contend that the City of Socorro intentionally caused flooding by constructing a ditch, and later two embankments, that were intended to protect one subdivision (Valley Ridge) at the expense of their neighborhood (Patti Jo Neighborhood). In 2006 El Paso and it surrounding area suffered a historic rain event. To remedy the flooding in the Valley Ridge Subdivision, the City of Socorro in 2009 built a diversion channel designed to intercept water and mud coming down the Sparks Arroyo and redirect it towards another existing drainage channel. These channels would redirect the flow around the Valley Ridge Subdivision and deposit it onto a tract of land to the east. In 2010, the United States Army Corps of Engineers issued a report noting that Socorro’s actions had diverted water from its original flow path. That same year, the El Paso Water Utilities, El Paso County, and the Texas Water Development Board released a master storm water plan that recognized Socorro’s efforts were “intended to relocate the arroyo flow path.” The storm water plan made detailed recommendations to address the risk of flooding to downstream communities caused by Socorro’s actions, but the City did not implement them. In a three-day period in September 2013, the area received over six inches of rainfall. Socorro’s diversion channel worked in the sense that the Valley Ridge subdivision was spared any flooding from the upstream direction, but the water and mud from the Spark’s arroyo collected on the east side of Thunder Road to such an extent that the Valley Ridge subdivision was once again threatened with flooding. So the City created two temporary sand embankments to stop the flooding. Unfortunately, the redirection of water poured onto the Patti Jo Neighborhood, flooding the Plaintiffs’ homes. Plaintiffs asserted both through the original 2009 diversion channel, and the 2013 Thunder Road embankments, Socorro purposely redirected the flow of water from the Valley Ridge subdivision towards the Patti Jo Neighborhood. They allege that the City of Socorro was “substantially certain” these actions would cause flooding and damage to their homes.  The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction which the trial court denied.

A takings claim consists of three elements: (1) an intentional act by the government under its lawful authority, (2) resulting in a taking, damaging, or destruction of the plaintiff’s property, and (3) for public use. The intent element requires those seeking redress to show that the government “intentionally took or damaged their property . . . or was substantially certain that would be the result.” It is not enough that the act causing the harm is intentional; the governmental entity must know to a substantial certainty that the harm complained of would occur. Accordingly, a takings claim cannot rest on mere negligence. The court held that the mere possibility of future flooding would not rise to the level of a constitutional taking.  However, the petition as a whole alleges that the diversion of water and mud from the 2009 ditch plus the funneling of that water across by the sand embankments is what extensively damaged their property. The pleadings allege the City was substantially certain the embankments combining of the diversion water from the channels would result in flooding of their homes. And while the court held the case law supports that a single flood event is not usually the basis of a taking, the court held multiple floods are not a requirement. As a result, the Plaintiffs properly pled that the City was substantially certain that the combined channel plus temporary embankments equates to an intentional taking.  The court did note that such a determination was limited to analyzing the four corners of the pleadings only and should this case ever return on a factual record the court may determine a taking is not supported under the facts. But, from a pleadings standpoint, the Plaintiffs are permitted to go forward.

If you would like to read this opinion click here. The Panel includes Chief Justice McClure, Justice Rodriguez and Senior Judge Larsen.  Chief Justice McClure delivered the opinion on the court. Attorneys listed for the City are Kurt Paxson,. James A. Martinez and John P. Mobbs. Attorneys listed for the Plaintiffs are Christopher C. Benoit, Lynn Anne Coyle,  Francisco  X. Dominguez , Michael Russell, Robert Doggett and Alberto Mesta Jr.