From: Subject: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:50:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2007/jun/060353.htm X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 IN THE SUPREME = COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

 

═════════_= 52;══

No. 06-0353

════════λ= 2;═══

 

City of Pasadena,=20 Petitioner,

 

v.

 

Kinsel Industries, Inc.,=20 Respondent

 

════════λ= 2;══════════&= #9552;═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;═

On Petition for Review from = the

Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth = District of=20 Texas

═════════_= 52;══════════= ══════════ = 552;══════════= ;══════════&#= 9552;

 

 

PER = CURIAM

 

 

Respondent=20 Kinsel Industries, Inc. contracted with = petitioner = City of Pasadena to build a wastewater = treatment plant.=20 Kinsel=92s subcontractor, Environmental = Infrastructure=20 Group, L.P., sued Kinsel and others over = disputes=20 relating to the project, and Kinsel asserted = third-party claims against the City. The trial court denied the City=92s = plea to=20 jurisdiction, and the court of appeals affirmed, holding that the = City=92s=20 immunity from suit was waived by section 51.075 of the Texas Local = Government=20 Code and by a charter provision empowering the City to =93sue and be = sued.=94 PasAdena, Tex., City Charter = art. I, =A7=20 2; ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. App.=97Corpus Christi 2006) = (mem. op.).

 Since=20 the court of appeals issued its opinion, we have rejected both its = holdings.=20 Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325, 342-44 = (Tex. = 2006). But we=20 also held in Tooke that absent some = other=20 waiver of immunity, sections 271.151-.160 of the Texas Local Government = Code,=20 enacted while the appeal in that case was pending (as was the appeal in = the=20 present case), are a limited, retroactive waiver of immunity from suit = on=20 certain contractual claims. Id. at=20 344-45. The City argues that Kinsel=92s claims=20 lie outside the scope of this waiver, but Kinsel=20 disagrees. We believe these arguments should be addressed to the trial = court in=20 the first instance. City of Houston v. Jones, = 197=20 S.W.3d 391, 392 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam).

Accordingly,=20 we grant the City=92s petition for review, and without hearing oral = argument,=20 Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, = reverse the=20 judgment of the court of appeals and remand the case to the trial court = for=20 further proceedings.

 

Opinion=20 delivered: June 1, 2007