law-motion-to-dismiss-and-plea-to-the-jurisdiction |
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
as PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
A motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is the functional equivalent of a plea to the
jurisdiction challenging the trial court's authority to determine the subject matter of a cause of action. Patton v.
Jones, 212 S.W.3d 541, 545 (Tex. App.-Austin 2006, pet. denied); Lacy v. Bassett, 132 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Tex.
App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.); Anderson v. City of San Antonio, 120 S.W.3d 5, 7 (Tex. App.-San
Antonio 2003, pet. denied). See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000) (plea to
jurisdiction is dilatory plea by which party challenges trial court's authority to determine subject matter of
action). Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review. Tex.
Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004); Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm'n
v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002). In performing this review, we do not look to the merits of the
plaintiff's case but consider only the pleadings and evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. County of
Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002).
Although a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction may be construed as a plea to the jurisdiction, see Klein v.
Hernandez, 260 S.W.3d 1, 4, 8 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. granted on other grounds)
(construing motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as plea to jurisdiction), only a governmental unit may bring
an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §
51.014(a)(8) (Vernon 2008); Young v. Villegas, 231 S.W.3d 1, 6–7 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet.
denied). Source: 01-09-00026-CV
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE