ACCEPTED 05-17-01447-cv FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 3/27/2018 1:56 AM LISA MATZ CLERK
No. 05-17-01447-CV ______________________________________________________________________________ FILED IN IN THE 5th COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS FOR THE 3/27/2018 1:56:00 AM FIFTH SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT LISA MATZ OF Clerk TEXAS AT DALLAS, TEXAS ______________________________________________________________________________
PRIMESTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, Appellee. ______________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas ______________________________________________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLANT ______________________________________________________________________________
WILLIE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D. 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 490 Houston, Texas 77027 (713) 659-7330 (713) 599-1659 SBOT# 21633500 attyjrwii@wisamlawyers.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT PRIMESTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
______________________________________________________________________________ IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The following is a complete list of all parties to the trial court's final judgment, as well as
the names and addresses of all trial and appellate counsel.
PARTIES COUNSEL
Appellant: Primestar Construction, Inc. Lori Chambers Gray, Esquire Lori Gray & Associates 11500 Northwest Freeway, Suite 340 Houston, Texas 77027 Trial Counsel for Appellant
Willie & Associates, P.C. Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D. 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 490 Houston, Texas 77027 Appellate Counsel for Appellant
Appellee: City of Dallas, Texas Office of the City Attorney Charles Estee, Esquire 7BN Dallas City Hall 1500 Marilla Street Dallas, Texas 75201 Trial Counsel for Appellee
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
ISSUES PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
I. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the sovereign immunity of the City of Dallas has been waived by statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not applicable . . . . . . . . . . 6
III. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the Appellant had standing to pursue her cause of action for breach of contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
IV. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because a Certificate of Merit is not applicable to this litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
V. The trial court erred by not entering properly requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PRAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
CETIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
APPENDIX
Appendix 1 - Order on City of Dallas' Plea to the Jurisdiction; Plea of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel; and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File a Certificate of Merit signed by the trial court on October 31, 2017.
Appendix 2 - Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Judgment, Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Motion for New Trial signed by the trial court on December 15, 2017.
iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES:
Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Andrade v. Venable, 372 S.W.3d 134 (Tex. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Bland v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Citizens Ins. v. Daccach, 217 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2007) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7
Clear Creek I.S.D. v. Cotton Commercial USA, Inc., 529 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. filed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6
Eagle Props., Ltd. v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 8
Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Hallco Tex., Inc. v. McMullen Cty., 221 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance, 923 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, no writ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12
Higginbotham v. General Life & Accident Insurance, 796 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 12
v INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (cont'd)
Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Group, 250 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 7
In re City of Lancaster, 228 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2007, orig. proceeding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
In re Methodist Dallas Medical Center, No. 05-13-00134-CV, 2013 WL 3423112 (Tex. App.--Dallas Jun. 3, 2013, orig. proceeding) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Jaster v. Comet II Construction, Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556 (Tex. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 11
Macina, Et Al. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691 (Tex. App.--Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. filed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 11
Morris v. Allstate Insurance Co., 523 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana 1975, no writ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 10
Mussgrave v. Owen, 67 S.W.3d 513 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2002, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. v. Fidelity Communications Co., 376 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2012, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9
Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9
Samuel v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 434 S.W.3d 230 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
State & County Mutual Fire Ins. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Sysco Food Services v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 8
vi INDEX OF AUTHORITIES (cont'd)
Texas Assn. of Business v. Texas Air Control Board, 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Vernco Construction, Inc. v. Nelson, 460 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9
West Orange-Cove I.S.D. v. Alanis, 107 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. 2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
West Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Republic Power Partners, L.P., 428 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2014, no pet.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 6
Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston Authority, 449 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2014) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 5
RULES AND STATUTES:
TEX. R. APP. P. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 150.002(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 11
TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 5, 9
vii STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case: This is a breach of contract cause of action brought by Primestar Construction, Inc.
Trial Court: The Honorable Craig Smith. 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.
Parties in Trial Court: Primestar Construction, Inc. - Plaintiff; City of Dallas, Texas - Defendant.
Trial Court Disposition: Plea to the Jurisdiction rendered in favor of the Defendant.
ISSUES PRESENTED
I. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the sovereign immunity of the City of Dallas has been waived by statute.
II. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not applicable.
III. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the Appellant had standing to pursue her cause of action for breach of contract.
IV. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because a Certificate of Merit is not applicable to this litigation.
V. The trial court erred by not entering properly requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
viii STATEMENT OF FACTS
On May 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Original Petition asserting a breach of
contract and wrongful termination of the contract by the Defendant, the City of
Dallas. (C.R. 11-43.) On June 5, 2017, the Defendant filed its Plea to the
Jurisdiction, in the Alternative, Special Exceptions; or, in the Alternative, Original
Answer. (C.R. 44-52.)
On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendant's Plea to the
Jurisdiction and Special Exceptions. (C.R. 53-56.) On July 21, 2017, the Defendant
filed its Plea of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel; Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to File a Certificate of Merit and Supplemental Special Exceptions. (C.R.
57-75.) On August 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Response to Defendant's Plea of
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel; Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File a
Certificate of Merit; and Supplemental Special Exceptions. (C.R. 76-81.)
Subsequently, the parties filed their respective briefs and responses to the issues
that were before the trial court. (C.R. 82-247; 248-267.)
On October 31, 2017, the trial court entered its order granting the
Defendant's Plea to the Jurisdiction, Plea of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to File a Certificate of Merit. (C.R. 268.) On
November 8, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Motion for New Trial or, in the
1 Alternative, Motion for Reconsideration. (C.R. 269-273.) On that same date, the
Plaintiff filed its Motion to Modify Judgment. (C.R. 274-275.)
On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff timely filed its Request for Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law. (C.R. 276-277.) On December 11, 2017, the
Defendant filed its Response to Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, Motion to Modify the Judgment, and Motion for New Trial.
(C.R.278-283.) On December 11, 2107, the Plaintiff filed its Objection and Reply
to Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, Motion to Modify the Judgment and Motion for New Trial.
(C.R. 284-286.)
On December 11, 2017, the Plaintiff timely filed its Notice of Past Due
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (C.R.287-288.) On December 15, 2017,
the trial court signed its Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Judgment,
Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Motion for New Trial.
(C.R. 296.)
On December 12, 2017, the Plaintiff timely perfected its appeal to the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District of Texas. (C.R. 297-298.)
2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
In this breach of a bilateral contract cause of action, the sovereign immunity
of the City of Dallas, Texas has been waived by the statutory provisions of TEX.
LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.152. See Zachry Construction Corp. v. Port of Houston
Authority, 449 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2014); Clear Creek I.S.D. v. Cotton Commercial
USA, Inc., 529 S.W.3d 569 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. filed);
West Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Republic Power Partners, L.P., 428
S.W.3d 299 (Tex. App.--Amarillo 2014, no pet.).
The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not applicable to the
facts and the law in this breach of a bilateral contract cause of action due to the fact
that the City of Dallas, Texas was not a defendant in the federal action nor was the
City of Dallas in privity of contract with the Plaintiff and Travelers Insurance
concerning their insurance dispute. See Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Group, 250
S.W.3d 78 (Tex. 2008); Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996);
Sysco Food Services v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796 (Tex. 1994); Eagle Props., Ltd.
v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714 (Tex. 1990).
The Plaintiff in this cause had the requisite standing to bring this breach of
bilateral contract cause of action because the Plaintiff's rights had been reserved
and the City of Dallas, Texas was on actual notice of the reservation of rights. See
3 Vernco Construction, Inc. v. Nelson, 460 S.W.3d 145 (Tex. 2015); Patterson v.
Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1998); Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. v.
Fidelity Communications Co., 376 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2012, no pet.);
Morris v. Allstate Insurance Co., 523 S.W.2d 299 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana
1975, no writ).
The Plaintiff is not in the class of litigants where a Certificate of Merit is
required to pursue this present litigation and the trial court erred by including the
contrary finding in its judgment. The Plaintiff nor the Defendant is neither an
licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect
and/or registered professional land surveyor and this litigation concerns the breach
of a bilateral contract for payment and not for professional services. See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 150.002(a); Jaster v. Comet II Construction, Inc., 438
S.W.3d 556 (Tex. 2014); Macina, Et Al. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL
4837691 (Tex. App.--Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. filed).
When a trial court considers evidence and testimony to determine
jurisdictional facts concerning a Plea to the Jurisdiction, Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law are both necessary and helpful for meaningful appellate
review. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance, 923 S.W.2d 192
(Tex. App.--Austin 1996, no writ). See also Higginbotham v. General Life &
Accident Insurance, 796 S.W.2d 695 (Tex. 1990).
4 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
I. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the sovereign immunity of the City of Dallas has been waived by statute.
This appeal involves the breach of a bilateral contract for construction
services provided to the Appellee by the Appellant. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §
271.152 states:
A local governmental entity that is authorized by statute or the constitution to enter into a contract and that enters into a contract subject to this subchapter waives sovereign immunity to suit for the purposes of adjudicating a claim for breach of the contract, subject to the terms and conditions of this subchapter.
(Emphasis added.)
It is uncontroverted and undisputed that the Appellant's cause of action is for
the breach of a bilateral contract entered into by the Appellee and the Appellant
concerning the payment owed for construction services and the wrongful
termination of the contract by the Appellee. (C.R. 12-24, 27-43.) It is undeniable
that the Appellee, the City of Dallas, Texas, is a home-rule city and local
governmental entity that is subject to the provisions of TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §
271.152. The Court in Zachry Construction Co. v. Port of Houston Authority, 449
5 S.W.3d 98, 109 -114 (Tex. 2014), set out the exact parameters of what constitutes
waiver of sovereign immunity by a local governmental entity that has entered into
a bilateral contract and the damages that may be recovered in a suit for breach of
that contract. The Appellant's cause of action meets all of the statutory and
Supreme Court of Texas' criteria, thus the sovereign immunity of the Appellee has
been unambiguously waived by statute and applicable case law. See also Clear
Creek I.S.D. v. Cotton Commercial USA, Inc., 529 S.W.3d 569, 578-580 (Tex.
App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, pet. filed); West Texas Municipal Power Agency
v. Republic Power Partners, L.P., 428 S.W.3d 299, 306-310 (Tex. App.--Amarillo
2014, no pet.). The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded
with instructions to order a new trial.
II. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel are not applicable.
Res judicata, or claim preclusion, prevents the relitigation of a claim or
cause of action that was finally adjudicated in a earlier suit. See Citizens Ins. v.
Daccach, 217 S.W.3d 430, 449 (Tex. 2007); Hallco Tex., Inc., v. McMullen Cty.,
221 S.W.3d 50, 58 (Tex. 2006). If the claims and/or causes of action arise from the
same set of operative facts, the doctrine of res judicata applies and the claims
and/or causes of action will be barred in a subsequent suit. See Samuel v. Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 434 S.W.3d 230, 234 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 6 2014, no pet.); Musgrave v. Owen, 67 S.W.3d 513, 519 (Tex. App.--Texarkana
2002, no pet.).
Additionally, in order for res judicata to apply, the parties in the second suit
are the same in the first suit or in privity with them. Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech.
Grp., 250 S.W.3d 78, 86 (Tex. 2008); Citizens Ins., 217 S.W.3d at 449. It is
uncontroverted and undisputed that the City of Dallas, Texas, was not a party to
the lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division. (C.R. 162-177.) Additionally, the federal district court
unambiguously and expressly held, "[T]he third party claim against the City of
Dallas appears to be unrelated to Primestar's liability under the indemnity
agreement, and Primestar has not explained why the claim is necessary to the
disposition of this case." (C.R. 213.) (Emphasis added.) It is undisputed that the
Appellee, the City of Dallas, Texas, was not and is not a party to the final judgment
rendered by the federal district court. (C.R. 228.) Lastly, there has been no
evidence presented, either in the trial court below or in the federal district court,
that the Appellee, the City of Dallas, Texas, was ever in privity of contract
concerning the indemnity agreement between the Appellant and Travelers
Insurance that was litigated in the federal district court. See Igal; Citizens Ins.,
supra. Simply put, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable to this litigation.
7 The Appellee contends that the doctrine of collateral estoppel also does not
apply. Collateral estoppel prevents a party from relitigating a particular fact issue
that the party had already litigated and lost in an earlier suit. State & County
Mutual Fire Ins. v. Miller, 52 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Tex. 2001); Barr v. Resolution
Trust Corp., 837 S.W.2d 627, 628 (Tex. 1992). To invoke collateral estoppel, a
party must establish: (1) the same facts sought to be litigated in the second suit
were fully litigated in the first suit, (2) those facts were essential to the judgment or
final order in the first suit, and (3) the parties were cast as adversaries in the first
suit. See Sysco Food Services v. Trapnell, 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994); Eagle
Properties. Ltd. v. Scharbauer, 807 S.W.2d 714, 721 (Tex. 1990). The litigation in
the trial court below and the federal district court litigation do not meet all of the
criteria for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to apply. (C.R. 213; 218.) The trial
court most certainly has the requisite subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the
controversy. The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded with
instructions to order a new trial.
8 III. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because the Appellant had standing to pursue her cause of action for breach of contract.
The appellate record in this case clearly shows that the Appellee and the
Appellant entered into a contract and that the Appellant brought its cause of action
for breach of the contract by the Appellee, pursuant to the statutory provisions of
TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 271.152. When standing is conferred by statute, the
plaintiff does not have to show that it suffered a particularized injury distinct from
the general public. See Andrade v. Venable, 372 S.W.3d 134, 137 (Tex. 2012);
Everett v. TK-Taito, L.L.C., 178 S.W.3d 844, 850 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 2005, no
pet.). Because standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction, the issue
cannot be waived and can be raised for the first time on appeal. West Orange-Cove
I.S.D. v. Alanis, 107 S.W.3d 558, 583 (Tex. 2003); Texas Assn. of Business v.
Texas Air Control Board, 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993). Standing focuses on
who is the correct party to bring the suit. See Vernco Construction, Inc. v. Nelson,
460 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Tex. 2015); Patterson v. Planned Parenthood, 971 S.W.2d
439, 442 (Tex. 1998). The Appellant certainly has statutory standing. Additionally,
the appellate record contains evidence that the Appellant and Travelers Insurance
had reserved the rights of the Appellant to pursue its cause of action in the trial
court below. (C.R. 251-252; 272-273.) See Nexstar Broadcasting, Inc. v. Fidelity
Communications Co., 376 S.W.3d 377, 385 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2012, no pet.);
9 Morris v. Allstate Insurance Co., 523 S.W.2d 299, 301 (Tex. Civ. App.--Texarkana
1975, no writ). The Appellee was "actual notice" of the reservation of Appellant's
rights to pursue its cause of action and breached its affirmative duty to so inform
the trial court. The Appellee's affirmative duty to the trial court and this tribunal
never ceases, even on appeal. See, e.g., TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT
3.03(a), (b) & cmt. 2, 3, 7; TEX. DISCIPLINARY R. PROF'L CONDUCT 3.04(a), (b) &
cmt. 1, 2. See also In re City of Lancaster, 228 S.W.3d 437, 441 (Tex. App.--
Dallas 2007, orig. proceeding); In re Methodist Dallas Medical Center, No. 05-13-
00134-CV, 2013 WL 3423112, at *1 (Tex. App.--Dallas Jun. 3, 2013, orig.
proceeding). The Appellant most certainly had the standing to pursue its cause of
action in the trial court. The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and
remanded with instructions to order a new trial.
IV. The trial court erred in granting the Plea to the Jurisdiction because a Certificate of Merit is not applicable to this litigation.
The trial court held an oral hearing on the Appellee's Plea to the Jurisdiction
and Motion to Dismiss. At the hearing, the trial court explicitly held that the
Appellant was not required to file a Certificate of Merit nor was a Certificate of
Merit relevant to the Appellant's cause of action. (1 C.R.R. 17-18.) Secondly, the
Appellant is not in the class of litigants where a Certificate of Merit is required to
pursue this present litigation and the trial court erred by including the contrary 10 finding in its judgment. The trial court should have granted the Motion to Modify
Judgment and deleted the Certificate of Merit finding from its judgment. (C.R.
274-275, 289-294.) The Appellee is neither an licensed architect, licensed
professional engineer, registered landscape architect and/or registered professional
land surveyor and this litigation concerns the breach of a bilateral contract for
payment and not for professional services. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §
150.002(a); Jaster v. Comet II Construction, Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556, 571 (Tex.
2014); Macina, Et Al. v. Yanez, No. 05-17-00180-CV, 2017 WL 4837691 at *2-3
(Tex. App.--Dallas Oct. 26, 2017, pet. filed). A Certificate of Merit is not required
in this litigation. The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded
V. The trial court erred by not entering properly requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
The trial court not only received documentary evidence, which has already
been referenced above, but received live testimony before ruling to grant the Plea
to the Jurisdiction. (2 C.R.R. 22-28. ) The Appellant timely and properly requested
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law concerning the jurisdictional issue after
the trial court granted the Plea to the Jurisdiction. (C.R. 276-277.) The trial court
never entered the requested findings and conclusions and the Appellant timely and
properly filed its Notice of Past Due Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. 11 (C.R. 287-288.) The trial court denied entering the requested Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law. (C.R. 296.)
A trial court must consider evidence and testimony on a plea to the
jurisdiction when the evidence and testimony are necessary to determine
jurisdictional facts. Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 150 (Tex.
2012); Bland v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000). Since the trial court
considered evidence and testimony when ruling on the Plea to the Jurisdiction,
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are both necessary and helpful for
meaningful appellate review. See, e.g., Hernandez v. Texas Department of
Insurance, 923 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex. App.--Austin 1996, no writ). See also
Higginbotham v. General Life & Accident Insurance, 796 S.W.2d 695, 695 (Tex.
1990). The trial court abused its discretion and reversibly erred by not entering the
requested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The judgment of the trial
court should be reversed and remanded with instructions to order a new trial.
PRAYER
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant, Primestar Construction, Inc.,
requests that judgment of the trial court be reversed and remanded with
12 Respectfully submitted,
By:Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D. Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D. 4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 490 Houston, Texas 77027 (713) 659-7330 (713) 599-1659 (FAX) SBOT# 21633500 attyjrwii@wisamlawyers.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served via e-service to Charles Estee, Assistant City Attorney, 1500 Marilla Street, 7DN Dallas City Hall, Dallas, Texas 75201, on the 26th day of March, 2018.
/s/ Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D. Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that the Brief of Appellant submitted complies with TEX. R. APP. P. 9 and the word count of this document is 2,733. The word processing software used to prepare the document and to calculate the word count is Windows 7.
/s/ Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D. Joseph R. Willie, II, D.D.S., J.D.
13 APPENDIX Appendix 1 NO. DC-17-OS460
PRIMESTAR CONSTRUCTION, INC § IN THE DISTRlCT COURT § Plaintiff, § § v. § 192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT § THE CITY OF DALLAS § Defendant. § OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER. ON CITY OF DALLAS'S PLEA TO JURISDICTION j PLEA OF RES J]JDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; AND MOTIQN TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE 'fQFILE A ~ERTIFICATE OF MF-ruT
ON THIS DATE tbe CoUt1 considered Defehdant City of Dallas's Plea to Jurisdiction;
Plea Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel; and t\,'fotion to Dismiss for Failure to File a Certificate
of Merit. The Court, after re,liewlng tbe pleas and mMion, finds tha:l gO(Jd cause ha..r,· been shown
for the granting of the Pleas and Motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Court, GRANTS the Def~ndant City of
Dallas's Plea to Jurisdiction; Plea. Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel; and Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to File a Certificate of Iv{erit.
SlONED thi' 4 day of October 2011.
Page 268 Appendix 2 CAUSE NO. DC-17-05460 I
PRIMEST AR CONSTRUCCTION, INC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiff, § § VS. § 192nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT § CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, § Defendant. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO MODIFY JUDGMENBT, REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
ON THIS DATE the Court considered Plaintiffs Motion to Modify Judgment, Request for
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Motion for New Trial. The Court, after reviewing
the motion and requests and the City of Dallas's response and hearing the argument of counsel,
fmds that the motions and request should be denied.
IT IS, THEREFORE , ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Modify Judgment, Request for
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Motion for New Trial are DENIED.
SIGNED this I~ day of December 2017.
Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Judgment, Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Motion for New Trial.
Page 1 ofl
Page 296