City of New Braunfels, Gale Pospisil, Robert Camereno, Tom Wilber and Mary Quinones v. Garrison Maurer, D/B/A Comal Towing Jeramie Hernandez, D/B/A JJ Towing And Robert Fleming, D/B/A Pro Care Wrecker Service

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMay 27, 2015
Docket03-14-00129-CV
StatusPublished

This text of City of New Braunfels, Gale Pospisil, Robert Camereno, Tom Wilber and Mary Quinones v. Garrison Maurer, D/B/A Comal Towing Jeramie Hernandez, D/B/A JJ Towing And Robert Fleming, D/B/A Pro Care Wrecker Service (City of New Braunfels, Gale Pospisil, Robert Camereno, Tom Wilber and Mary Quinones v. Garrison Maurer, D/B/A Comal Towing Jeramie Hernandez, D/B/A JJ Towing And Robert Fleming, D/B/A Pro Care Wrecker Service) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of New Braunfels, Gale Pospisil, Robert Camereno, Tom Wilber and Mary Quinones v. Garrison Maurer, D/B/A Comal Towing Jeramie Hernandez, D/B/A JJ Towing And Robert Fleming, D/B/A Pro Care Wrecker Service, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-14-00129-CV 5427072 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/27/2015 9:40:05 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK CAUSE NO. 03-14-00129-CV

*** FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS THIRD COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT 5/27/2015 9:40:05 AM AUSTIN, TEXAS JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk

***

CITY OF NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS; GALE POSPISIL, ROBERT CAMARENO, TOM WIBERT and MARY QUINONES Appellants,

V.

GARRISON MAURER, d/b/a COMAL TOWING; JERAMIE HERNANDEZ d/b/a JJ TOWING and ROBERT FLEMING, d/b/a PRO CARE WRECKER SERVICE Appellees,

APPELLANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS ENTIRE CASE AS MOOT

LAW OFFICES OF RYAN HENRY, PLLC Ryan S. Henry State Bar No. 24007347 1380 Pantheon Way, Suite 215 San Antonio, Texas 78232 210-257-6357 (Telephone) 210-569-6494 (Facsimile) Ryan.henry@rshlawfirm.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

1 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I attempted to confer with counsel for Co-Defendants in this case and have been unsuccessful in doing so. The Co-Defendants are not part of this appeal, but since the motion is to dismiss the entire case as to the City Defendants and not just the appeal, I attempted to confer with them as well. I also certify that I conferred with Plaintiffs’/Appellees’ attorney of record in this appeal via telephone. He advised he could not say whether he was opposed or unopposed at this time, even after providing him a copy of the proposed motion. As a result, the City assumes he is opposed to this motion to dismiss the entire case as moot.

CERTIFICIATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true copy of this document has been sent by regular U.S. Mail unless otherwise indicated, to the person(s) listed below on the 26th day of May, 2015.

Mr. Daniel P. McCarthy Fax No. (210) 979-8734 MCCARTHY LAW FIRM P.C. and to dan@mccarthy-law.com 10001 Reunion Place, Suite 640 San Antonio, Texas 78216 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Mr. Samuel V Houston, III Fax No. (210) 826-0075 Houston Dunn, PLLC and to sam@hdappeals.com 4040 Broadway, Suite 440 San Antonio, Texas 78209 Attorney for Plaintiffs

Mr. Ricardo H. “Richard” Silvas Fax No. (210) 236-5420 4538 Centerview Suite 240 and to richard@rsilvas.com San Antonio, Texas 78228 Attorney for Defendant New Braunfels Wrecker Service, LLC Joe Medillin d/b/a New Braunfels Towing Company

Mr. Troy D. Burch, Jr. Fax No. (830) 629-0953 BURCH LAW FIRM and to tburch@burchfirm.com 328 S. Seguin Ave. New Braunfels, Texas 78130 Attorney for Hill Country Custom Towing

2 Mr. David G. Pfueffer Fax No. (830) 629-2161 BRAZLE AND PFUEFFER LLP and to dpfeuffer@nblawyers.net 170 E. San Antonio Street New Braunfels, Texas 78130 Attorney for Kahlig Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Bluebonnet Collision Service a/k/a Bluebonnet Motors

/s/____________________________ RYAN S. HENRY

3 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:

NOW COMES Appellants/Defendants City of New Braunfels, Gale Pospisil,

Robert Camareno, Tom Wibert and Mary Quinones (“City Defendants”) and files

this opposed motion to dismiss this case as moot, and would respectfully show the

Court the following:

Summary

The crux of this case turns on four separate towing contracts awarded to four

separate towing companies who were placed on a non-consent tow list created from

RFP #13-001. C.R. 10. The contracts in question expired on December 31, 2014 by

their own terms. C.R. 32. A new ordinance, No. 2015-04, took effect on May 1, 2015

which dispenses with the system utilized by the City in awarding the four prior

contracts and adding anyone to the list. Please find attached as Exhibit A, a certified

copy of Ordinance No. 2015-04.

With a new regulatory process beginning which does not use contracts and

the contracts which made the basis of this suit no longer being in place, this case has

become moot. Appellants hereby move to dismiss the entire case as moot.

Factual Recap & Arguments

Relief Requested is Prospective Only

It is important to note that Maurer and the other Plaintiffs are not seeking

damages for being left off the list and expressly stated they are not suing to force the

4 City to place them on the list. C.R. 235, para. 8. They state “Plaintiffs seek

prospective injunctive and declaratory relief that would prohibit the City from

continuing to operate under the contracts it awarded under the RFP. ….Plaintiffs

have intentionally not plead for monetary damages, such as lost profits or loss of

business opportunity, because it would invoke sovereign immunity.” C.R. 244 para.

21. “Plaintiffs' seeks this Court to declare void the actions taken by The City of New

Braunfels through its city council at the city council meeting on December 10, 2012

in the awarding the contracts to the Defendants…” C.R. 244 para. 22.

The towing contracts and the list expired by their own terms on December 31st

of 2014. C.R. 32. The Plaintiffs are seeking prospective relief only to prevent the

City from utilizing the non-consent tow call list (which no longer exists). C.R. 14-

16. They seek to hold the list void ab initio. C.R. 16. They bring suit against the City

individuals for ultra-vires claims, which can only be prospective in nature under City

of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 376 (Tex. 2009). C.R. 9, 50-51. As a result,

all of the relief sought is to prevent and control future action, not for anything

allegedly lost in the past. The future action is now dictated by the ordinance which

moots their claims for allegedly not following competitive bidding requirements.

The ordinance was not enacted until after the contract and list expired by their own

terms.

5 Mootness Generally

As the court is well aware, the mootness doctrine prevents courts from

rendering advisory opinions, which are outside the jurisdiction conferred by Article

II, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution. See Valley Baptist Med. Ctr. v. Gonzalez, 33

S.W.3d 821, 822 (Tex. 2000). A controversy must exist between the parties at every

stage of the legal proceeding, including the appeal. Bd. of Adjustment of City of San

Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2002) (Emphasis added).

An issue may become moot when a party seeks a ruling on some matter that,

when rendered, would not have any practical legal effect on a then-existing

controversy. See In re H & R Block Fin. Advisors, Inc., 262 S.W.3d 896, 900 (Tex.

App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding); City of Farmers Branch v.

Ramos, 235 S.W.3d 462, 469 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, no pet.). When an appeal is

moot, a court must set aside the judgment and dismiss the cause in its entirety. City

of Fort Worth v. Pastusek Indus., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 366, 371 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth

2001, no pet.).

An appellate court is prohibited from deciding a moot controversy. See Nat'l

Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex.1999). This prohibition is

rooted in the separation of powers doctrine in the Texas and United States

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich
284 S.W.3d 366 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Labrado v. County of El Paso
132 S.W.3d 581 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2004)
City of Farmers Branch v. Ramos
235 S.W.3d 462 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Hulett v. West Lamar Rural High School District
232 S.W.2d 669 (Texas Supreme Court, 1950)
Valley Baptist Medical Center v. Gonzalez Ex Rel. M.G.
33 S.W.3d 821 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Williams v. Lara
52 S.W.3d 171 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Board of Adjustment of the City of San Antonio v. Wende
92 S.W.3d 424 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Trulock v. City of Duncanville
277 S.W.3d 920 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Jones
1 S.W.3d 83 (Texas Supreme Court, 1999)
Meeker v. Tarrant County College District
317 S.W.3d 754 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
In Re H&R Block Financial Advisors, Inc.
262 S.W.3d 896 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
City of Fort Worth v. Pastusek Industries, Inc.
48 S.W.3d 366 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Speer v. Presbyterian Children's Home & Service Agency
847 S.W.2d 227 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
Day v. First City National Bank of Houston
654 S.W.2d 794 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
City of New Braunfels, Gale Pospisil, Robert Camereno, Tom Wilber and Mary Quinones v. Garrison Maurer, D/B/A Comal Towing Jeramie Hernandez, D/B/A JJ Towing And Robert Fleming, D/B/A Pro Care Wrecker Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-braunfels-gale-pospisil-robert-camereno-tom-wilber-and-mary-texapp-2015.