law-plea-juris | plea to the jurisdiction based on absence of standing | appellate review of plea juris |
plea to the jurisdiction denied | opportunity to amend | consideration of relevant jurisdictional facts |
Plea to the Jurisdiction
A plea to the jurisdiction challenges a trial court's authority to decide a case. See Miranda, 133 S.W.
3d at 225-26. Analysis of whether this authority exists begins with the plaintiff's live pleadings. Id. at
226. The plaintiff has the initial burden of alleging facts that affirmatively demonstrate the trial court's
jurisdiction to hear the cause. Id. (citing Texas Ass'n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d
440, 446 (Tex. 1993)). Whether the plaintiff met this burden is a question of law that we review de
novo. Id. We construe the pleadings liberally and look to the pleader's intent. Id.
When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, the trial court considers the allegations in the
plaintiff's petition, which is to be construed in favor of the plaintiff, to determine if the plaintiff alleged facts
affirmatively demonstrating the court's jurisdiction to hear the case. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,
133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). To the extent relevant to the jurisdiction issue, the trial court may also
consider evidence submitted by the parties. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d at 555. If the trial court
concludes that a fact issue exists, the plea may not be granted. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227-28. If the
relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a fact issue as to jurisdiction, the trial court may rule on the
plea as a matter of law. Id. at 228. On appeal, because subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law, we
review the trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. Houston Mun. Employees Pension Sys. v.
Ferrell, 248 S.W.3d 151, 156 (Tex. 2007).
Seureau v. Exxon Mobil Corp (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 16, 2008)(Brown)
If a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, we consider relevant evidence
submitted by the parties when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. Tex. Dep't of Parks &
Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex. 2004). If the evidence creates a fact question regarding the
jurisdictional issue, then the plea to the jurisdiction must be denied. Id. at 227-28. If the evidence is
undisputed or fails to raise a fact question on the jurisdictional issue, then the trial court rules on the plea to
the jurisdiction as a matter of law. Id. at 228. As our concurring colleague observes, however, the City, in its
plea to the jurisdiction, challenged appellants' pleadings.
Tara Partners, Ltd. v. City of South Houston (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 13, 2009)(Seymore)(city
governmental immunity)
A plea to the court's jurisdiction challenges a trial court's authority to determine the subject matter of a
controversy. See State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 642 (Tex. 2007); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.
3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to a court's authority to act and, as such,
cannot be waived. See Cont'l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 448 n.2 (Tex. 1996). The
plaintiff bears the burden to plead facts affirmatively demonstrating subject matter jurisdiction. See Holland,
221 S.W.3d at 642; Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 426, 431 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Upon a finding that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the suit. Jansen, 14
S.W.3d at 431. A plea to the jurisdiction raises a question of law and is reviewed de novo on appeal.
Westbrook v. Penley, 231 S.W.3d 389, 394 (Tex. 2007); Holland, 221 S.W.3d at 642. When reviewing a trial
court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction, we construe the pleadings in favor of the plaintiff. Tex. Dep't of
Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).
The State of Texas, City of Rosenberg v. Bhalesha (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 6, 2008)(Yates)
(inverse condemnation, plea to the jurisdiction)
In Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004), the Texas Supreme
Court addressed a plea to the jurisdiction in which undisputed evidence implicated both the subject matter
jurisdiction of the court and the merits of the case. The court concluded that where the plea challenges the
existence of jurisdictional facts, a reviewing court must consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties
when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised, just as the trial court is required to do. See id.
Here, because appellants' pleas to the jurisdiction - which include a circuity-of-travel argument - implicate the
subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court as well as the merits of the case, we will consider relevant evidence
necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised.
May be raised for the first time on appeal
He argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the children moved to Oklahoma and thus Texas was
no longer their home state. Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, to which we apply a de novo
standard of review. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004); Salaymeh v.
Plaza Centro, LLC, No. 14-06-01101-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2008 WL 4335090, at *2 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th
Dist.] Aug. 26, 2008, no pet. h.). Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Salaymeh, 2008 WL 4335090, at *2.
Standard of Review on Appeal
Because subject matter jurisdiction presents a question of law, we review a trial court's order granting a plea to
the jurisdiction de novo. See Metro. Transit Auth. v. Burks, 79 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th
Dist.] 2002, no pet.). A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea, the purpose of which is to defeat a cause of
action without regard to whether the claims asserted have merit. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d
547, 554 (Tex. 2000). The purpose of a dilatory plea is not to force a plaintiff to preview its case on the merits,
but to establish a reason why the merits of its case should never be reached. Id. In deciding a plea to the
jurisdiction, a court may not weigh the merits of the claims, but must consider only the plaintiffs' pleadings and
the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. Id. at 554, 555. When we consider a trial court's order on a
plea to the jurisdiction, we construe the pleadings liberally and look to the pleader's intent. Tex. Dep't of Parks
& Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). A trial court accepts the factual allegations in the
petition as true, unless the defendant pleads and proves the allegations were fraudulently made to confer
jurisdiction. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rivera, 93 S.W.3d 315, 319 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2002,
no pet.).
SWBT v. Harris County (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 26, 2008)(Yates)
(inverse condemnation claim, utility easement, compensable taking, jurisdiction of Harris County county courts,
plea to the jurisdiction reversed)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Brock Yates
Before Justices Brock Yates, Anderson and Brown)
14-07-00401-CV Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P v. Harris County
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 2 of Harris County
Trial Court Judges: Jacqueline Lucci-Smith | Gary Block
In this case, the county court did not state the grounds upon which it granted Harris County's plea to the
jurisdiction. As required, SWBT has attacked all independent grounds that may support the adverse ruling.
See Britton v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681-82 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no
pet.). We will sustain the county court's order granting Harris County's plea if any ground alleged by Harris
County is meritorious. See Villarreal v. Harris County, 226 S.W.3d 537, 541 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, no pet.).
Plea Juris vs. Motion for Summary Judgment
a “plea to the jurisdiction is not a surrogate for a summary judgment." City of Celina v. Dynavest Joint
Venture, 253 S.W.3d 399, 404 (Tex. App.- Austin Apr. 24, 2008, no pet.).
In reviewing a plea to the jurisdiction, we cannot examine the merits of the case or the issues raised in a
motion for summary judgment but must consider only the plaintiffs' pleadings and evidence pertinent to the
jurisdictional inquiry. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d at 555; City of Houston v. Rushing, 7 S.W.3d
909, 913 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (explaining that “[a] motion for summary judgment
concerns the merits of a lawsuit" whereas “a plea to the jurisdiction concerns whether the pleadings state a
cause of action that confers jurisdiction on the trial court"). Accordingly, we must limit our decision to the
jurisdictional arguments raised in Harris County's plea. We cannot address the issues raised by SWBT's
summary judgment motion. See Tomball Hosp. Auth. v. Harris County Hosp. Dist., 178 S.W.3d 244, 248-49
(Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. granted) (stating that because appeal arose out of grant of plea to
jurisdiction and trial court did not rule on summary judgment motion, appellate court was limited to jurisdictional
issues raised in plea and could not address issues raised in motion). We overrule SWBT's second issue.
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE