What is a plea to the jurisdiction in Texas law?

law-plea-to-the-jurisdiction | jurisdictional plea | dismissal for want of jurisdiction | subject matter jurisdiction
can evidence be considered in a jurisdictional inquiry by the court | standing-based plea to the jurisdiction | moot
and mootness doctrine | ripe and ripeness doctrine | opportunity to amend pleadings to address jurisdiction defect
appellate review of grant or denial of plea to the jurisdiction |

What is a plea to the jurisdiction in Texas?
A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea that is intended to defeat a cause of action for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction regardless of whether the claims asserted have merit. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547,
554 (Tex. 2000). Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to the authority of a court to decide a case and is never
presumed. Tex. Ass’n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 443–44. The plaintiff has the burden to allege facts affirmatively
demonstrating that the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 446.

       The existence of subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law. State Dep’t of Hwys. & Pub. Transp. v.
Gonzalez, 82 S.W.3d 322, 327 (Tex. 2002). Therefore, we review the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the
jurisdiction de novo. Id. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, the trial
court must consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties. Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.
3d 217, 227 (Tex. 2004).

The plea to the jurisdiction standard mirrors that of a traditional motion for summary judgment. Id. at 228; City of
Fort Worth v. Robinson, 300 S.W.3d 892, 895 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.). The governmental unit must
meet the summary judgment standard of proof for its assertion that the trial court lacks jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.
W.3d at 228; Robinson, 300 S.W.3d at 895. Once the governmental unit meets its burden, the plaintiff must show
that there is a disputed material fact regarding the jurisdictional issue. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 228; Robinson,
300 S.W.3d at 895. We take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant, and we indulge every reasonable
inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant’s favor. Robinson, 300 S.W.3d at 895; see Miranda, 133 S.W.
3d at 228. If the evidence creates a fact question regarding jurisdiction, the trial court cannot grant the plea to the
jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the fact-finder; 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 as a matter of law. Miranda,
133 S.W.3d at 227–28. 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).

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). 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.
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). Therefore, we review the trial court's ruling on a plea to the
jurisdiction de novo. Id. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, the
trial court must consider relevant evidence submitted by the parties. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v.
Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004).
If the evidence creates a fact question regarding jurisdiction, the trial court cannot grant the plea to the
jurisdiction, and the fact issue will be resolved by the fact-finder; 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 as a
matter of law. Id. at 227-28.
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). In conducting our review, we take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant
and indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the nonmovant's favor. Miranda, 133 S.
W.3d at 228. East Houston Estate Apartments, LLC v. City of Houston (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jun. 25,
2009)(Opinion by Keyes)(city held immune, City of Mexia v. Tooke progeny, statutory waiver for breach of contract
suits against local governments not applicable)(trial court did not err in sustaining the City's plea to the jurisdiction)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Evelyn Keyes
Panel members: Justices Keyes, Hanks and Bland
01-08-00966-CV East Houston Estate Apartments, L.L.C. v. The City of Houston
Appeal from 333rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Lamar McCorkle

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). Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is a
question of law. Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Accordingly, we
review a challenge to the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Id. at 228. When reviewing a plea to the
jurisdiction, we must look to the allegations in the pleadings, liberally construe them in the plaintiff's favor, and look
to the pleader's intent. Id. at 226. In doing so, we consider the facts alleged in the petition and, to the extent
relevant to the jurisdictional issue, any evidence the parties submitted to the trial court. See Bland Indep. Sch.
Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000). If the pleadings do not contain sufficient facts to affirmatively
demonstrate the trial court's jurisdiction but do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the
issue is one of pleading sufficiency and the plaintiffs should be afforded the opportunity to amend. Miranda, 133 S.
W.3d at 226-27. If the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction
may be granted without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend. Id., 133 S.W.3d at 227.
Kelly v. American Interstate Insurance Co. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 25, 2008)(Brown)
(venue, MTV, exhaustion of administrative remedies, workers comp, compensable injury, plea juris)
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Brown

What is it and what rules govern its disposition?

Source: City of Houston v. Petroleum Traders Corp. (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] July 3, 2008)(Boyce)
(city's immunity claim, waived of governmental immunity to breach of contract claim by statute, City of Houston
litigation , Tooke progeny)

A plea to the jurisdiction based on governmental immunity challenges a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction.
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); Dahl ex rel. Dahl v. State, 92 S.W.3d 856, 860-861 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). Subject
matter jurisdiction is essential to a court's authority to act. 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. Holland, 221 S.W.3d at 642. Upon a finding that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the
court must dismiss the suit. Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 426, 431 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no
pet.). A plea to the jurisdiction raises a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. C.L. Westbrook, Jr. v.
Penley, 231 S.W.3d 389, 394 (Tex. 2007); Holland, 221 S.W.3d at 642.

A plea to the jurisdiction can challenge either the pleadings or the existence of jurisdictional facts. Tex. Dept. of
Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004).

When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges plaintiff's pleadings, the determination pivots on whether the pleader
has alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate the court's subject matter jurisdiction over the matter. Id. We construe
pleadings liberally in the plaintiff's favor and look to the pleader=s intent. City of Carrollton v. Singer, 232 S.W.3d
790, 795 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2007, pet. denied). When the pleadings neither allege sufficient facts nor
demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency and the plaintiff should be
afforded the opportunity to amend. County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002). 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 jurisdictional facts, we consider the evidence submitted by the parties to
address the jurisdictional issues raised. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227. "If evidence creates a fact question
regarding the jurisdictional issue, then the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction, and the fact issue will
be resolved by the fact finder." Id. at 227-28.

Because governmental immunity involves both immunity from suit and immunity from liability, it is necessary to
determine which form of immunity is being asserted. The City does not claim immunity from liability for payment
due for fuel delivered under the PTC purchase orders. The City does claim immunity from suit, contending that no
valid contract exists and no valid waiver of authority has been invoked. See Clear Lake City Water Auth. v.
Friendswood Dev. Co., No. 14-07-00096-CV, 2008 WL 2130435, at *2 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] May 22,
2008, no pet. h) ("When a governmental entity enters into a contract, that entity waives immunity from liability and
voluntarily binds itself, just as any other party would, to the terms of the contract, but that entity does not thereby
waive immunity from suit").

Saturn Capital Corp. v. City of Houston (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 11, 2007)(Anderson) (government
entities sovereign immunity, grant of plea to the jurisdiction reversed, illegal fee, invalid lien)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Anderson
Before Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Anderson and Seymore
14-07-00379-CV Saturn Capital Corporation v. The City of Houston
Appeal from County Civil Ct at Law No 2 of Harris County (Hon. Lucci-Smith)

HOUSTON COURTS AND CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE