In Re City of Dallas, Texas v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 24, 2025
• Docket: 08-25-00246-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ————————————

No. 08-25-00246-CV ————————————

In re City of Dallas, Texas, Relator

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N

This is an original proceeding for a writ of injunction ancillary to a pending appeal, coupled

with a motion for emergency relief. We deny both the motion for emergency relief and the writ of

injunction.

The City of Dallas (the City), Relator, is the Appellant in an appeal styled City of Dallas v.

Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, which is pending in this Court under Cause No. 08-25- 00020-CV (Trial Cause No. D-1-GN-24-004948). 1 That ancillary appeal concerns a dispute over

the adoption of a funding plan by the Dallas Police & Fire Pension System (the System), the Real

Party in Interest in this proceeding. Among other terms, the adopted plan sets the contributions

required by the City and it grants cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) to the System’s members.

The System sued the City of Dallas seeking declaratory judgment of the respective rights and

obligations of the parties under the governing statutes. The City counterclaimed for competing

declarations to invalidate the System’s plan, arguing it violated statutory limitations imposed on

its adoption. The trial court rendered a final judgment declaring the System’s funding plan had the

force of law unless and until the Legislature preempted it or it was amended. The City filed a notice

of appeal that also included notice of the suspension of the enforcement of any final judgment

pending resolution of the appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 6.002(b) (providing that

a municipality may appeal from a judgment without giving supersedeas or cost bond); see also

Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(h)(2).

Most recently, on October 14, 2025, the City filed a motion for emergency relief and this

petition for writ of injunction to enforce suspension of the trial court’s judgment and to prohibit

the System from making COLA payments to retirees during the pendency of the appeal in Cause

No. 08-25-00020-CV. On the same day, the City also filed an emergency motion in Cause No. 08-

25-00020-CV in which it made a duplicate claim and sought the same relief.

On October 15, 2025, we issued a temporary administrative stay of the enforcement of the

trial court’s judgment in Cause No. 08-25-00020-CV, including a stay of the System’s payment of

any COLA payments pursuant to that judgment. On October 17, 2025, after considering the

emergency motion, response, and reply filed in the pending appeal in Cause No. 08-25-00020-CV,

1 We take judicial notice of the case file for the ancillary appeal. See In re Estate of Hemsley, 460 S.W.3d 629, 638 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2014, pet. denied).

2 we granted the City’s emergency motion. We ordered the trial court’s judgment to remain

suspended and clarified that our order included suspension of the payment of COLAs by the

System in accordance with the retirement funding plan, which is otherwise enforced by the trial

court’s judgment that is the subject of the appeal. The emergency relief granted in Cause No. 08-

25-00020-CV remains in effect until further orders of this Court.

Because we have granted the very same relief in the ancillary appeal that is requested in

this proceeding, we determine the subject of this petition is moot and no longer a live controversy.

See Seals v. City of Dallas, 249 S.W.3d 750, 754 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) (issue becomes

moot when controversy no longer exists). We deny the City’s petition for lack of jurisdiction based

on mootness. For the same reason, we also deny the City’s emergency motion.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

October 24, 2025

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, J., and Benavides, J. (Senior Judge) Benavides, J. (Senior Judge), sitting by assignment