the City of Austin Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission, Mark Washington, Arturo Acevedo, and the City of Austin v. William M. Stewart

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedNovember 10, 2015
Docket03-15-00591-CV
StatusPublished

This text of the City of Austin Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission, Mark Washington, Arturo Acevedo, and the City of Austin v. William M. Stewart (the City of Austin Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission, Mark Washington, Arturo Acevedo, and the City of Austin v. William M. Stewart) 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
the City of Austin Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission, Mark Washington, Arturo Acevedo, and the City of Austin v. William M. Stewart, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-15-00591-CV 7769797 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 11/10/2015 3:15:09 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-15-00591-CV

FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS In the Third Court of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS Austin, Texas 11/10/2015 3:15:09 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk

THE CITY OF AUSTIN FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS’ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, DIRECTOR MARK WASHINGTON, CHIEF ARTURO ACEVEDO AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, Defendants – Appellants

v.

WILLIAM M. STEWART, Plaintiff - Appellee

Appeal from Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003351 98th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Anne L. Morgan, Interim City Attorney Meghan L. Riley, Chief, Litigation Chris Edwards, Assistant City Attorney State Bar No. 00789276 City of Austin-Law Department P. O. Box 1546 Austin, Texas 78767-1546 Telephone: (512) 974-2419 Facsimile: (512) 974-1311 chris.edwards@austintexas.gov

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT - APPELLANT IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Defendants - Appellants The City of Austin Firefighters and Police Officers’ Civil Service Commission, Director Mark Washington, Chief Arturo Acevedo & the City of Austin, Texas

Plaintiff - Appellee William M. Stewart

Counsel for Defendant – Appellant Chris Edwards Assistant City Attorney State Bar No. 00789276 City of Austin - Law Department P.O. Box 1546 Austin, Texas 78767-1546 Telephone: (512) 974-2419 Facsimile: (512) 974-1311 chris.edwards@austintexas.gov

Counsel for Plaintiff - Appellee Grant Goodwin State Bar No. 00787567 400 W. 14th Street, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-9111 Facsimile: (512) 495-9301 grant.goodwin@cleat.org

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ........................................................ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. iii, iv

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................. v, vi

RECORD REFERENCES ......................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...............................................................................1

ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED .......................................................2

ISSUES PRESENTED .............................................................................................2

I. The district court erred when it denied the plea to the jurisdiction because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction based on lack of standing for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. .....................................................2

II. The district court erred when it denied the plea to the jurisdiction because governmental immunity is not waived under the Civil Service Act or Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act...............................................................3

III. The district court erred when it did not dismiss Chief of Police Art Acevedo against whom all claims were abandoned. ......................................................3

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................3

A. The facts are not in dispute. .............................................................................3

B. Officer Discipline is pursuant to the Meet and Confer Agreement and Chapter 143 .....................................................................................................6

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .....................................................................8

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................8

A. The Rules of Statutory Construction do not support Stewart’s interpretation of Chapter 143 or the M&C Agreement. .........................................................9

iii B. Stewart lacked standing and the district court lacked jurisdiction because administrative remedies were not exhausted. ................................................10

1. The district court lacked jurisdiction over claims for reinstatement, back pay and lost benefits. ................................11

2. The district court lacked jurisdiction to void the Agreed Temporary Suspension. .............................................................13

C. The district court lacked jurisdiction over claims for which governmental immunity is not waived. ................................................................................17

1. Immunity bars claims against the City for back pay and lost benefits. .....................................................................................18

2. Immunity bars claims against Director Washington for acts which are not ministerial. .........................................................19

D. The district court lacked jurisdiction because all claims against the Chief of Police were abandoned ..................................................................................22

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ...........................................................................23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................26

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................. 27

iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Beacon Nat’l Ins. v. Montemayor, 86 S.W.3d 260 (Tex.App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) ...............................................17

Brown v. Nero, 2015 WL 5666172 (Tex.App.—Austin 2015) ............................................... 12, 18

Cf. Summers v. Keebler Co., 133 Fed. App’x. 249 (6th Cir. 2005) ....................................................................15

Chenault v. Phillips, 914 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. 1996). ........................................................................... 9, 16

City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) .......................................................................... 19, 20

Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Civil Service Com’n of City of Houston v. Ceazer, 725 S.W.2d 431 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.) .....................................................................................................................22

Galbraith Eng’g Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha, 290 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. 2009) ...................................................................................9

Hamilton v. Mark Washington, et al., 2014 WL 7458988 (Tex.App.—Austin 2014) . 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20

Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 123 S.Ct. 588 (2002) .............................................................................................19

In re Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd., 98 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. 2003) ...................................................................................22

Marks v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp.,

Related

Garrity v. New Jersey
385 U.S. 493 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Spevack v. Klein
385 U.S. 511 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.
537 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 2002)
The City of El Paso v. Lilli M. Heinrich
284 S.W.3d 366 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Galbraith Engineering Consultants, Inc. v. Pochucha
290 S.W.3d 863 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Marks v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital
319 S.W.3d 658 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Wichita Falls State Hospital v. Taylor
106 S.W.3d 692 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Chenault v. Phillips
914 S.W.2d 140 (Texas Supreme Court, 1996)
In Re Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd.
98 S.W.3d 178 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Beacon National Insurance Co. v. Montemayor
86 S.W.3d 260 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Sawyer Trust
354 S.W.3d 384 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
Texas Department of Transportation v. Sefzik
355 S.W.3d 618 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
the City of Austin Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission, Mark Washington, Arturo Acevedo, and the City of Austin v. William M. Stewart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-city-of-austin-firefighters-and-police-officers-civil-service-texapp-2015.