West Travis County Public Utility Agency, on Behalf of Itself and Its Directors, Larry Fox, Michael Murphy, Ray Whisenant, Bill Goodwin, and Scott Roberts, in Their Official Capacities v. CCNG Development Co., L.P.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 30, 2016
Docket03-16-00521-CV
StatusPublished

This text of West Travis County Public Utility Agency, on Behalf of Itself and Its Directors, Larry Fox, Michael Murphy, Ray Whisenant, Bill Goodwin, and Scott Roberts, in Their Official Capacities v. CCNG Development Co., L.P. (West Travis County Public Utility Agency, on Behalf of Itself and Its Directors, Larry Fox, Michael Murphy, Ray Whisenant, Bill Goodwin, and Scott Roberts, in Their Official Capacities v. CCNG Development Co., L.P.) 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
West Travis County Public Utility Agency, on Behalf of Itself and Its Directors, Larry Fox, Michael Murphy, Ray Whisenant, Bill Goodwin, and Scott Roberts, in Their Official Capacities v. CCNG Development Co., L.P., (Tex. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-16-00521-CV 12435072 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/30/2016 9:30:22 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK Cause No. 03-16-00521-CV

IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN AUSTIN, TEXAS 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/30/2016 9:30:22 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE WEST TRAVIS COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY, Clerk Appellant, v.

CCNG DEVELOPMENT CO., L.P. Appellee.

APPELLEE'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND MOTION FOR "JUST DAMAGES" UNDER RULE 45

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

On August 5, 2016, the West Travis County Public Utility Agency ("WTCPUA")

filed a Notice of Appeal of a district court Order Granting Motion for New Trial and

Motion to Reinstate Case (the "Order"). WTCPUA claims this Court has interlocutory

jurisdiction under section 51.041(a)(8), Tex. Civ. Pr. &Rem. Code. WTCPUA is wrong.

Section 51.041(a)(8) allows interlocutory appeals only from an order that grants or

denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental agency. The trial court here did no

such thing. The Order merely granted a simple motion seeking procedural reinstatement

of a lawsuit that was erroneously dismissed due to a clerical error. No plea to the

jurisdiction was before the court. The Order does not decide any jurisdictional issues.

Indeed, the trial judge expressly stated at the hearing that he was only ruling on the

"simple motion" to reinstate, and doing so "without prejudice" to the WTCPUA's right to

"urge in a different hearing a motion to dismiss for lack ofjurisdiction." CCNG Development Co., L.P. ("CCNG") respectfully requests that the Court

dismiss this improper appeal under Tex. R. App. Pro. 42.3. CCNG further requests that

the Court award "just damages" to CCNG pursuant to Tex. R. App. Pr. 45, as this appeal

is frivolous and was filed for purposes of delay only.

BACKGROUND

CCNG filed its Original Petition in this lawsuit on January 16, 2014. WTCPUA

answered on February 14, 2014. WTCPUA's answer included a Plea to the Jurisdiction

that has never been set for hearing. CCNG filed a First Amended Original Petition on

April 8, 2014. See Exhibit 1.

On July 14, 2016, CCNG's lawsuit was erroneously included in a blanket order

dismissing numerous cases for want of prosecution. See E~ibit 2. The dismissal order

violated Travis County Local Rule 8.3, which requires the Court Administrator to provide

notice to the parties and the opportunity to file a motion to retain before a case is

dismissed for lack of prosecution. The Court Administrator did not provide the required

notice prior to the issuance of the blanket order. See Motion for New Trial and Motion to

Reinstate Case, attached as E~ibit 3, pp. 1-2.

CCNG received notice of the dismissal order on July 25, 2016. On July 26,

CCNG filed a Motion for New Trial and Motion to Reinstate Case and promptly set a

hearing on the Motion for August 5, 2016. Id., p. 5.

On the afternoon of August 4, 2016, right before the hearing scheduled for the

next morning, WTCPUA filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for New

Trial and Motion to Reinstate Case on the Basis of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

2 See E~ibit 4. In its Response, WTCPUA argued that there was no longer a live

controversy because on the eve of the hearing WTCPUA had tendered checks in the

amounts of $552,983 and $582,625 to CCNG, which WTCPUA incorrectly claimed was

all of the relief CCNG sought in its First Amended Petition. Id., p. 4.

WTCPUA's mootness argument is incorrect. In its First Amended Petition,

CCNG seeks as damages for breach of contract "the balance due and owed under the

Utility Agreement," including interest. See E~ibit 1 ¶ 53. CCNG also seeks attorneys'

fees. Id. at ¶ 65. The Utility Agreement specifically provides for recovery of both

interest and attorneys' fees in the event of a default. See E~ibit 4, E~ibit B-1

§§ 10.02(b) & 11.01(c) at pp. 21-23. WTCPUA's two payments on the eve of the

hearing include no amounts for interest or attorneys' fees. CCNG's claims for interest

and attorneys' fees remain pending. They have not been adjudicated by the court, and

they have not been paid by WTCPUA. It is therefore indisputable that the partial

payments tendered by WTCPUA on August 4 did not resolve the live controversy

between the parties.

Further, WTCPUA's partial payments do not moot CCNG's claims seeking a

declaratory judgment to resolve a controversy about how to calculate the date when

Reimbursable Costs become due, a declaration that may apply to future Reimbursable

Costs under the Utility Agreement. See E~ibit 1 ¶ 58. Nor do those partial payments

moot CCNG's claims for injunctive relief to enjoin WTCPUA's directors from denying

service to CCNG. See id. ¶ 62.

3 At the August 5, 2016 hearing on CCNG's Motion, District Judge Scott Jenkins

declined to rule upon any arguments regarding jurisdiction. In granting CCNG's Motion

for New Trial and Motion for Reinstate, the Court specifically pointed out that the

jurisdictional issues would need to be addressed at another time:

"This is without prejudice to your opportunity to continue to argue or reargue, urge in a different hearing a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the case is moot."

See E~ibit 5, Hearing Transcript, at 17 (Emphasis added). The Court had already noted

that the only matter that had been set for hearing that day was "a simple motion," and that

the Court had very limited time available to hear it: "You're set on the 15-minute rocket

docket. You have seven minutes a side." Id. at 4. Although the PUA Defendants

attempted to make jurisdictional arguments at that hearing based on arguments raised for

the first time on the eve of the hearing, the Court deferred consideration of those

arguments for a later time:

"But what I'm saying is they need to have an opportunity to respond to the evidence on record. It may be when they have an opportunity to respond to your 215-page filing last night, they might be able to raise a fact question that essentially shows that it's not entirely moot."

Id. at 9. The District Judge heard argument only on CCNG's Motion for New Trial and

Motion to Reinstate Case and entered an order granting that Motion. See E~ibit 6.

ARGUMENT

I. The appeal should be dismissed because the Order did not grant or deny a plea to the jurisdiction by WTCPUA.

Section 51.041(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that:

"(a) A person may appeal from an interlocutory order of a district court, county court at

D law, statutory probate court, or county court that:... (8) grants or denies a plea to the

jurisdiction by a governmental unit as that term is defined in Section 101.001."

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal of an interlocutory order that

does not explicitly rule on a plea to the jurisdiction or implicitly rule on a such a plea by

ruling on the merits of the case. Texas Dept ofPub. Safety v. Salazar', No. 03-11-00206-

CV, 2011 WL 1469429, *1 (Tex. App. Austin 2011, no pet.)(order continuing hearing

on plea to jurisdiction and authorizing discovery was not a grant or denial of plea).

This is particularly true where the trial court explicitly defers a ruling on

jurisdictional issues. Tex. Parks &Wildlife Dept v.

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

Related

Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. Simons
140 S.W.3d 338 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Intercontinental Group Partnership v. KB Home Lone Star L.P.
295 S.W.3d 650 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board
852 S.W.2d 440 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
Board of Water Eng of State v. Cty of San Antonio
283 S.W.2d 722 (Texas Supreme Court, 1955)
Williams v. Lara
52 S.W.3d 171 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
City of Galveston v. Gray
93 S.W.3d 587 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
South Texas Water Authority v. Lomas
223 S.W.3d 304 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Mike Rawlings, Mayor v. Timoteo F. Gonzalez
407 S.W.3d 420 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department v. Rubio
483 S.W.3d 797 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
West Travis County Public Utility Agency, on Behalf of Itself and Its Directors, Larry Fox, Michael Murphy, Ray Whisenant, Bill Goodwin, and Scott Roberts, in Their Official Capacities v. CCNG Development Co., L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/west-travis-county-public-utility-agency-on-behalf-of-itself-and-its-texapp-2016.