law-plea-to-jurisdiction-consideration-of-fact | jurisdictional plea | motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction | sovereign, governmental immunity | mootness doctrine | absence, want, lack of standing to sue |
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION APPROVED AS VEHICLE TO PROCURE DISMISSAL OF WHISTLEBLOWER
SUIT BASED ON ALLEGATIONS STATED IN THE PLEADINGS
State of Texas and TxDoT v. Lueck, No. 06-1034 (Tex. Jun. 26, 2009)(Green)(Whistleblower Act claim
dismissed)(allegation of regulatory noncompliance insufficient, report not to appropriate law enforcement
agency, allegation of violation of the law as jurisdictional element, dismissal on the pleadings by plea to the
jurisdiction, no opportunity to amend afforded)
THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION v. GEORGE LUECK; from
Travis County; 3rd district (03-05-00510-CV, 212 SW3d 630, 08-16-06)
motion to dismiss denied
The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Justice Green delivered the opinion of the Court. [pdf 16 pgs.]
“When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, we determine if the pleader has alleged facts that
affirmatively demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause. We construe the pleadings liberally in favor
of the plaintiffs and look to the pleaders’ intent.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 (citations omitted). ...
[A]s a matter of law, Lueck’s pleadings affirmatively demonstrate that he did not allege a violation under the
Whistleblower Act.[3] For these reasons, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and dismiss the cause for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
ULTRA VIRES EXCEPTION TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
Here, Heinrich alleges that petitioners violated article 6243b, section 10A(b) of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes
when they reduced her benefits. Thus, if Heinrich’s allegations are true, her suit would fall within the ultra vires
exception to governmental immunity as described above.
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, No. 06-0778 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(Jefferson)
(governmental immunity)(retrospective monetary relief barred; prospective relief against official capacity
defendant not barred by immunity, no individual-capacity claims, ergo official immunity inapplicable)
This is not the end of our analysis, however: “if a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of
jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the
jurisdictional issues raised, as the trial court is required to do.” Id. at 227. If there is no question of fact as to the
jurisdictional issue, the trial court must rule on the plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law. Id. at 228. If,
however, the jurisdictional evidence creates a fact question, then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the
jurisdiction, and the issue must be resolved by the fact finder. Id. at 227–28. This standard mirrors our review
of summary judgments, and we therefore take as true all evidence favorable to Heinrich, indulging every
reasonable inference and resolving any doubts in her favor. Id. at 228.
Tex. Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004) (“[I]n some cases,
disputed evidence of jurisdictional facts that also implicate the merits of the case may require
resolution by the finder of fact.”) Cited by: TxDoT v. York, No. 07-0743 (Tex. Dec. 5, 2008)(per curiam)
(TTCA, dangerous road conditions, special defect)