law-ripeness


Ripeness is a component of subject matter jurisdiction. Gibson, 22 S.W.3d at 850. "Ripeness, like
standing, is a threshold issue that implicates subject matter jurisdiction, and like standing, emphasizes
the need for a concrete injury for a justiciable claim to be presented." Id. (quoting Patterson v. Planned
Parenthood of Houston, 971 S.W.2d 439, 432 (Tex. 1998)). However, where standing concerns who
may bring an action, ripeness concerns when that action may be brought. Id. at 851.

Harris County Municipal District No. 156 v. United Somerset Corp. (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Sep. 4,
2008)(Alcala) (plea to the jurisdiction, immunity, local government unit, suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Bland
01-07-00220-CV Harris County Municipal District Number 156 v. United Somerset Corporation
Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Patricia Hancock  

In considering whether a claim is ripe, we consider whether, at the time a lawsuit is filed, the facts are
sufficiently developed "so that an injury has occurred or is likely to occur, rather than being contingent or
remote." Id. at 851-52 (quoting Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at 442)). A claim is not ripe if it concerns "uncertain or
contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or may not occur at all." Id. at 852 (quoting
Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at 442). "A case is not ripe when determining whether the plaintiff has a concrete injury
depends on contingent or hypothetical facts, or upon events that have not yet come to pass." Id. (citing
Patterson, 971 S.W.2d at 443). A threat of harm can constitute a concrete injury, but the threat must be "direct
and immediate" rather than conjectural, hypothetical, or remote. Id. (citing Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S.
136, 152, 87 S. Ct. 1507 (1967)).

In other words, an action for declaratory judgment is appropriate when the fact situation manifests the present
"ripening seeds" of a controversy. See Save Our Springs Alliance v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674, 683 (Tex.
App.--Austin 2004, no pet.). Ripening seeds of a controversy "appear where the claims of several parties are
present and indicative of threatened litigation in the immediate future which seems unavoidable, even though
the differences between the parties as to their legal rights have not reached the state of an actual controversy."
Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Moore, 985 S.W.2d 149, 154 (Tex. App.--Austin 1998, no pet.) (quoting Ainsworth
v. Oil City Brass Works, 271 S.W.2d 754, 761 (Tex. Civ. App.--Beaumont 1954, no writ)).