X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The city of Dallas filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over this suit because the appellee, First Trade Union Savings Bank, lacked standing to sue the city or, in the alternative, because the bank’s claims sounded in tort and were barred by governmental immunity. The trial court denied the city’s plea to the jurisdiction. In this interlocutory appeal, the city again asserts that the bank lacks standing to sue and that the bank’s tort claims are barred by governmental immunity. Additionally, for the first time, the city asserts that all the bank’s claims, tort or otherwise, are barred by governmental immunity. HOLDINGAffirmed. The city argues that the trial court erred by denying the city’s plea to the jurisdiction because immunity from suit bars the bank’s tort claims. Specifically, the city asserts the bank’s wrongful claim on bond cause of action, even though couched as a breach of contract claim, sounds in tort and is not within the limited waiver of immunity contained in the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The city further asserts that Texas does not recognize a wrongful termination and wrongful claim on a bond cause of action. The city may not address the merits of whether a particular cause of action exists in a plea to the jurisdiction. Without considering the merits of the bank’s claims, it appears those claims, as pleaded, are not claims sounding in tort. The bank alleged claims for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. These claims all arise out of the contracts and alleged obligations of the parties under the contracts. The bank is seeking to recover economic damages or the benefit of its bargain, as alleged assignee of CEA. The bank did not seek to recover damages for personal injury, death, or injury to property. Thus, the trial court did not err in rejecting the city’s argument that the claims were tort claims which did not fall within the limited waiver of immunity from suit and liability contained in the TTCA. The city has failed to show the trial court erred in denying the plea to the jurisdiction. The city also asserts that the bank failed to meet its burden of pleading a waiver of immunity from suit. A plaintiff has the burden to establish a waiver of immunity from suit. Generally, a plaintiff may establish a waiver of immunity from suit by alleging either a statute or expressed legislative permission. The city did not raise this argument in its plea to the jurisdiction before the trial court. This is an appeal from an interlocutory order. A party may appeal from an intelocutory order that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit as that term is defined in the Texas Tort Claims Act.Tex. Because the statute authorizing interlocutory appeals is a narrow exception to the general rule that only final judgments and orders are appealable, the court must give it a strict construction. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. city of Sunset Valley, 8 S.W.3d 727 (Tex. App. � Austin 1999, no pet.). The city did not argue in its plea to the jurisdiction that all the bank’s claims are barred by governmental immunity. Therefore, the interlocutory order did not deny the plea to the jurisdiction on this basis and the court does not have jurisdiction under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code �51.014(a)(8) to review this argument. The court acknowledges that subject matter jurisdiction is never presumed and cannot be waived. The court does not presume subject matter jurisdiction in this case nor hold that subject matter jurisdiction has been waived. However, in an interlocutory appeal under �51.014(a)(8), the court’s jurisdiction is only to review the trial court’s ruling on the plea to the jurisdiction filed below. The city cites a recent case holding governmental immunity can be raised for the first time on appeal from an interlocutory order denying a plea to the jurisdiction. City of Houston v. Northwood Mun. Dist. No. 1, 73 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. App. � Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). Northwoodwas an interlocutory appeal of an order denying pleas to the jurisdiction challenging the plaintiffs’ standing to sue. Although the city had not raised governmental immunity in the trial court, the city argued on appeal the trial court should have granted the pleas to the jurisdiction because governmental immunity barred the suit. Without discussing how a trial court could err in denying a plea to the jurisdiction on a ground never raised in the plea, the 1st Court of Appeals concluded the issue could be raised for the first time on appeal, citing Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 1999). Jones was an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction. However, there the issue of governmental immunity had been raised below in the plea to the jurisdiction. Thus, the Supreme Court in Jonesdid not consider whether governmental immunity could be raised for the first time on an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction. Given the clear language in �51.014(a)(8), the court declines to follow Northwood. Moreover, a trial court may not grant a plea to the jurisdiction where a plaintiff fails to plead facts establishing jurisdiction without first allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend. Because the city failed to raise this argument in the trial court, the bank has never been given an opportunity to amend its petition to meet the city’s challenge. More importantly, the city does not argue on appeal that the bank’s petition affirmatively negates the trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction or contains incurable defects in jurisdiction. Thus, at most the city merely raises an issue of pleading sufficiency and has not shown the trial court erred in denying the plea to the jurisdiction. OPINION:Moseley, J.; Moseley, Lang and Lagarde, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.