law-plea-to-the-jurisdiction | subject matter jurisdiction | mootness doctrine | sovereign or governmenal
immunity
STANDING AND JURISDICTION
Standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction that cannot be waived. Tex. Ass’n of
Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445–46 (Tex. 1993). If a party does not have standing, a trial
court has no subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Id. at 444–45. A trial court’s jurisdiction to hear the
subject matter of a dispute may be challenged by filing a plea to the jurisdiction. See Bland Indep. Sch. Dist.
v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000).
A defendant may prevail on a plea to the jurisdiction by demonstrating that, even if all the plaintiff’s pleaded
allegations are true, an incurable jurisdictional defect remains on the face of the pleadings that deprives the
trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Harris County Appraisal Dist. v. O’Connor & Assocs., 267 S.W.3d
413, 416 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). In determining a plea to the jurisdiction, a
trial court may consider the pleadings and any evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional
inquiry. Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 554–55.
PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION AND OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND
A plea to the jurisdiction seeks dismissal of a cause based on lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004); Ahmed v. Metropolitan Transit
Auth., 257 S.W.3d 29, 31 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.). Whether a court has subject-matter
jurisdiction and whether a plaintiff has affirmatively demonstrated subject-matter jurisdiction are questions
of law that we review de novo. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).
In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, we may not weigh the merits of the plaintiff's claim, but must consider
only the plaintiff's pleadings, construed in favor of the plaintiff, and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional
inquiry. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002); Saturn Capital Corp. v. City of
Houston, 246 S.W.3d 242, 244B45 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, pet. denied).
HAS THE PLAINTIFF PLEADED HIMSELF OUT OF COURT? IS PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RE-PLEAD?
When a plaintiff fails to plead facts establishing jurisdiction, but the petition does not affirmatively
demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency. In that instance,
the plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to amend. Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 555. However, if the
pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, dismissal is proper without allowing the plaintiff an
opportunity to amend. Id.
Robinson v. Alief ISD (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 25, 2009) (public employment, school law)
(school employee record expunction dispute, lack of jurisdiction due to mootness, no declaratory judgment
on constitutional violations that have ceased, plaintiff no longer an employee subject to alleged
unconstitutional conduct, opportunity to amend may be waived )
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Chief Justice Hedges
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Brock Yates and Frost
14-08-00949-CV Adrian Robinson v. Alief Independent School District and Louis Stoerner, In his Official
Capacity Only
Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: LYNN M. BRADSHAW-HULL
Dissenting Opinion by Justice Frost in Adrian Robinson v. Alief Independent School District
OTHER PLEA JURIS CASES FROM HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS
Plea to the Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction requires that the party bringing the suit have standing, that there be a live
controversy between the parties, and that the case be justiciable. State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d
243, 245 (Tex. 1994). If the district court lacks the power to effect a remedy that would resolve the dispute at
issue, the case does not present a justiciable issue. Di Portanova v. Monroe, 229 S.W.3d 324, 330 (Tex. App.
-- Houston [1 Dist.] 2006, pet. denied).
"The absence of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a plea to the jurisdiction, as well as by other
procedural vehicles, such as a motion for summary judgment." Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d
547, 554 (Tex. 2000) (footnotes omitted); see also Houston Mun. Employees Pension Sys. v. Ferrell, 248 S.
W.3d 151, 156 (Tex. 2007) ("A party may contest a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction by filing a plea to
the jurisdiction."). A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea that seeks dismissal of a case for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction. Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004); see Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34
S.W.3d at 554. The purpose of a dilatory plea is not to force the plaintiff to preview its case on the merits, but
to establish a reason why the merits of the case should not be reached. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d
at 554.
A plea to the jurisdiction can challenge either the sufficiency of the plaintiff's pleadings or the existence of
jurisdictional facts. See Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004). When
a plea to the jurisdiction attacks the pleadings, the issue turns on whether the pleader has alleged sufficient
facts to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 226. In such cases, we construe the pleadings liberally
in the plaintiff's favor and look for the pleader's intent. Id. When the pleadings neither allege sufficient facts
nor demonstrate incurable defects, the plaintiff should usually be afforded an opportunity to amend. Id. at
226-27. However, if the pleadings affirmatively negate jurisdiction, then the plea to the jurisdiction may be
granted without leave to amend. Id. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional
facts, a court may consider evidence in addressing the jurisdictional issues. Id. at 227. If the evidence
reveals a question of fact on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court cannot grant the plea, and the issue must
be resolved by a fact finder. Id. at 227-28. However, if the relevant evidence is undisputed or fails to raise a
fact question on the jurisdictional issue, the trial court rules on the plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law.
Id. at 228.
In reviewing a trial court's granting of a plea to the jurisdiction, we do not look to the merits of the plaintiff's
case, but consider only the pleadings and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. Id. at 227. The
plaintiff bears the burden to allege facts affirmatively demonstrating the trial court's jurisdiction to hear a
case. See Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). If a plaintiff pleads
facts that affirmatively demonstrate an absence of jurisdiction and the jurisdictional defect is incurable, then
the cause is properly dismissed. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227. However, when the plaintiff fails to plead
facts that establish jurisdiction, but the petition does not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in
jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency, and the plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to
amend. Id. at 226-27.
This standard of review generally mirrors that of a summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
166a(c). Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228. To prevail on a plea to the jurisdiction, the party asserting the plea
"must show that even if all the allegations in the plaintiff's pleadings are taken as true, there is an incurable
jurisdictional defect apparent from the face of the pleadings, rendering it impossible for the plaintiff's petition
to confer jurisdiction on the court." Bland Indep. Sch. Dist., 34 S.W.3d at 554. Whether a court has subject
matter jurisdiction over a case is a legal question and, therefore, we review a trial court's ruling on a plea to
the jurisdiction under a de novo standard of review. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226; Mayhew v. Town of
Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998). A trial court properly dismisses claims over which it has no
subject matter jurisdiction. Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334, 338 (Tex. 2006).
American Zurich Ins. Co. v. Samudio (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 11, 2010)(Alcala)
(carrier loses workers compensation appeal over worker's impairment rating, plea to the jurisdiction in judicial
review suit affirmed, attorney fees award for prevailing claimant workers comp appeal)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Higley
01-08-00233-CV American Zurich Insurance Company v. Daniel Samudio
Appeal from 127th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Sharolyn P. Wood
A plea to the jurisdiction challenges the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Bland Indep.
Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); Pineda v. City of Houston, 175 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, no pet.). Subject matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to
decide a case and is never presumed. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443–44
(Tex. 1993). The plaintiff has the burden to allege facts affirmatively demonstrating that the trial court has
subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 446; Richardson v. First Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 419 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex. 1967).
The existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. State Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp. v.
Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. 2002); Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex.
1998). Therefore, we review de novo the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction. Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d
at 928. In deciding a plea to the jurisdiction, a court may not consider the merits of the case, but only the
plaintiff’s pleadings and the evidence pertinent to the jurisdictional inquiry. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80
S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002). Further, a court can either afford plaintiffs the opportunity to amend a pleading
if the “issue is one of pleading sufficiency,” or “if the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of
jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to
amend.” Id.
Plaza At 610 Commons Inc v. HCAD (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 1, 2009)(Higley)
(property tax protest, appeal administrative remedies and judicial review suit, plea to the jurisdiction, no
substitution of different entity as owner under Rule 28 governing dbas, common names, identity of property
owner is the issue, real property owner did not bring tax protest and suit within the filing deadline, compliance
jurisdictional, attempted amendment to add owner untimely)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Higley
Before Justices Jennings, Higley and Sharp
01-08-00690-CV Plaza At 610 Commons Inc. v. Harris County Appraisal District
Appeal from 334th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon Sharon McCally
HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE