Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACT: Sefa Koseoglu worked as a contract employee at the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, a division of the Texas A&M University System. Koseoglu sued the Texas A&M University System, the Texas Engineering Experiment Station and Mark McLellan, his supervisor, for allegedly breaching his employment contract. Both Texas A&M and McLellan filed pleas to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign immunity and challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction to hear Koseoglu’s claims. The trial court denied the pleas to the jurisdiction, and Texas A&M and McLellan appealed. The 10th Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment with respect to Texas A&M’s appeal, holding Texas A&M’s sovereign immunity from suit barred Koseoglu’s breach of contract claim. Rather than dismiss Koseoglu’s claim against Texas A&M, the 10th Court concluded that Koseoglu deserved an opportunity to amend his pleadings and therefore remanded the matter to the trial court. With respect to McLellan’s appeal, the 10th Court held it was without jurisdiction to decide the appeal because, as a state official, McLellan had no statutory right under the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �51.014(a)(8) to appeal the trial court’s denial of a plea to the jurisdiction premised on sovereign immunity. HOLDING:Affirmed in part, revered in part, reversed and rendered in part. Koseoglu, the court stated, deserved the opportunity to amend his pleadings if the defects could be cured. But Koseoglu’s pleading defects could not be cured, and he made no suggestion as to how to cure the jurisdictional defect, the court stated. As is the case with special exceptions, the court stated, a pleader must be given an opportunity to amend in response to a plea to the jurisdiction only if it is possible to cure the pleading defect. Remanding this case, the court stated, would serve no legitimate purpose, because Koseoglu’s underlying claim was a breach of contract claim. Merely pleading more facts in support of the breach of contract claim would not overcome Texas A&M’s immunity from suit. With respect to McLellan’s appeal, the court, having examined the plain language of �51.014(a)(8), its logical application and the legislative history, held that a state official may seek interlocutory appellate review from the denial of a jurisdictional plea. Accordingly, the court dismissed with prejudice the claim against McLellan in his official capacity. OPINION:Green, J.

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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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.