Supreme Court endorses jurisdictional dismissal with prejudice

Sep. 9, 2007 - In its only opinion released with its weekly orders last Friday, the Texas Supreme Court resolved a three-way split among the courts of appeals on the question whether a governmental official sued in his official capacity is entitled to seek interlocutory review in the court of appeals when his plea to the jurisdiction is denied by the trial court. The unanimous court, in an opinion by Justice Green answered 'yes', and rendered judgment for the defendants on sovereign immunity grounds. Texas A&M University System v. Sefa Koseoglu, No. 05‑0321 (Tex. 2007)

In dismissing the state employee's claims with prejudice, and denying him an opportunity to replead, the state's court of last resort in civil matters further limited the ability of state employees to bring suits for wrongful termination. The court opined that the plaintiff would not be able to overcome the immunity problem because he was asserting a breach of contract claim, and thus need not be given an opportunity to try again on remand.

The Court's endorsement of dismissal with prejudice on lack of jurisdiction grounds sets a new statewide precedent and marks a further step in the expansion of the sovereign immunity doctrine to privilege and protect the interests of government defendants without regard to the merits of the complaints brought against them, and correspondingly limits the avenues of redress available to aggrieved workers and contractors.

It had previously been generally accepted that dismissal with prejudice is not proper when the a court does not reach the merits of the controversy. Numerous lower-court opinions had given effect to that principle even in pro se and in forma pauperis suits brought by prison inmates. Dismissal with prejudice would presumably make the option to seek legislative permission to sue (immunity waiver by legislative resolution) meaningless as well. Though rare, this method has sometimes been employed to overcome the sovereign immunity defense and establish the state's consent to suit on a claim that would otherwise be dismissed without regard to merits on a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the defendant.

Firefighters Fight in Texas Supreme Court Nets Partial Victory

Texas Supreme Court Decides Two More Firefighter Appeals

March 9, 2007 - Supreme Court hands down two more opinions in appeals from suits by municipal fire fighters over compensation. The unifying theme in these cases is whether their employing local governments are immune from such suits. City of Dallas v. Dora Saucedo-Falls, et al.,No. 05-0973 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam) City of Sweetwater, Texas v. Waddell, et al,No. 05-1033 (Tex. Mar. 9, 2007)(per curiam)

In City of Dallas v. Saucedo-Falls, the City had asserted a counterclaim for declaratory judgment and attorneys fees against the plaintiffs' suit complaining about denial of a pay raise, but had later filed a plea to the jurisdiction, and sought dismissal. Plaintiffs successfully argued in the trial court and on appeal that the city had waived its immunity by its conduct. In deciding the City's interlocutory appeal in a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court did not announce any new precedent, but remanded the case to the trial court to allow the plaintiffs to argue any viable immunity waiver in the wake of the Legislature's enactment of a limited statutory waiver of local government immunity, which occurred while the case was pending, and its recent sovereign immunity decisions, specifically its holdings in Tooke v. Mexia, and its second opinion in an earlier case involving the City of Dallas, in which it found that the city had waived immunity by filing a claim for affirmative relief of its own. See Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006); Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 343 (Tex. 2006); Loc. Gov't Code §§271.151-.160.

In the Sweetwater case, which was factually similar, the trial court granted the city's jurisdictional plea to the firefighters' claims and dismissed their suit with prejudice. On appeal, the plaintiffs were successful in arguing that the "sue and be sued" language in the city' charter waived its immunity.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, had reversed long-standing precedent for that proposition when it decided Tooke v. City of Mexia and a batch of companion cases at the end of June last year. Following its newly established precedent, the Court thus reversed the Eastland Court of Appeal's judgment and sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether the plaintiffs could proceed under the newly enacted legislation authorizing suits against local governments subject to certain limitations.

Cases cited:

Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 446 (Tex.1994) (holding, in an action construing the compulsory school attendance law, that the Declaratory Judgments Act, by authorizing actions to construe legislative enactments and attorney fee awards, "necessarily waives governmental immunity for such awards")

City of Irving v. Inform Constr., Inc., 201 S.W.3d 693 (Tex. 2006)

Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006)

Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 408 n.1) (Tex. 1997)(waiver by conduct)

Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006)

Find terms: sovereign immunity, plea to the jurisdiction, immune from suit