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:El Paso County awarded two contracts for transit services to LULAC Project Amistad Inc. Thereafter, Sunset Coaches Inc., a disappointed bidder, and Tony Labrado, Sunset’s president, brought this suit against the county and LULAC, challenging the awards of the contracts. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County and LULAC. HOLDING:The county’s motion to dismiss is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of Sunset’s claim for damages, and the claim for damages is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In all other respects, the county’s motion to dismiss is denied. The trial court’s order denying the appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment and granting the appellees’ motions for summary judgment is reversed. Judgment is rendered declaring that the County of El Paso violated Texas Local Government Code �262.027(a) by awarding the contracts at issue in this case to LULAC Project Amistad because LULAC was not a responsible bidder in that its bid did not comply with the specification to maintain a well-equipped garage with appropriate personnel to provide maintenance on the county’s vehicles. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings regarding the appellants’ request for a declaratory judgment that LULAC was not a responsible bidder because it does not have all necessary licenses issued by appropriate state agencies to operate a transit system in this state and regarding the appellants’ request for attorney’s fees. Including corporations within the definition of “citizen” in �262.033 serves the intent and purpose of the County Purchasing Act. The court concludes that both Labrado and Sunset have standing under �262.033 to seek injunctive relief. The appellants also have standing to seek declaratory relief. When a request for injunctive relief becomes moot because the action sought to be enjoined has been accomplished, a request for declaratory relief also becomes moot. Speer v. Presbyterian Children’s Home & Serv. Agency, 847 S.W.2d 227 (Tex. 1993). In some circumstances, however, a live claim for attorney’s fees will prevent a suit for injunctive and declaratory relief from becoming moot. Like Speer, the appellants were not successful in the trial court. The court believes Speer is distinguishable. Speer sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, which provides that only prevailing parties may recover attorney’s fees. In this case, the appellants’ claim for declaratory relief arises from the Declaratory Judgments Act, which allows attorney’s fees to be awarded on an “equitable and just” basis. Under this statute, a party does not have to prevail to be awarded attorney’s fees. Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996). In Speer, the supreme court emphasized that because Speer could never be a prevailing party under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, she could not be entitled to recover attorney’s fees. That cannot be said in this case. The court also concludes that it has jurisdiction over this case under the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine. Under the county’s interpretation of several cases, any time a plaintiff includes a claim for damages in a suit against the government, immunity will bar the plaintiff from obtaining any other relief, even if the Legislature has expressly waived immunity for the other relief. The court declines to read the cases that broadly. The court concludes that the appellants’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are not barred by governmental immunity. The court concludes that Sunset did not waive its right to seek injunctive and ancillary declaratory relief under Texas Local Government Code �262.033 by submitting its bids. The dispute centers on whether LULAC was a “responsible” bidder within the meaning of �262.027(a). Because this is a matter committed to the discretion of the commissioners court, the commissioners court’s decision should be reviewed only to determine whether it was fraudulent, arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. Both requests for bids provided, “The operator must maintain a well-equipped garage with appropriate Personnel to provide maintenance on the County vehicle(s).” The appellants assert that LULAC has not satisfied this requirement because it is undisputed that LULAC does not operate a garage. The court concludes that the appellants established as a matter of law that this was a material specification, that LULAC wholly failed to respond to this specification, that LULAC was therefore not a responsible bidder, and that the county’s decision to award the contracts to LULAC in spite of its material noncompliance with the bid specifications was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion. A fact question exists regarding whether LULAC was required to register with the Texas Department of Transportation; whether it had all necessary licenses to operate a transit system in this state; and whether its failure to register with the department, if required, amounted to a material noncompliance with the bid specifications. OPINION:Larsen, J.; Barajas, C.J., Larsen and McClure, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* 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 © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.