City of San Benito v. Cameron Cnty. Drainage Dist. No. 3

CITY OF SAN BENITO, TEXAS, Appellant, v. CAMERON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NO. 3AND CAMERON COUNTY IRRIGATION DISTRICT NO. 2,JAMES D. PENNY AND LARRY GARCIA, Appellees.

NUMBER 13-19-00194-CV

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

September 24, 2020

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides

Appellant, the City of San Benito (City), appeals an order denying its plea to the jurisdiction. We reverse and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

The Cameron County Drainage District No. 3 (Drainage District), the Cameron County Irrigation District No. 2 (Irrigation District), James D. Penny, and Larry Garcia filed suit against the City. According to the "Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition for Injunction and Other Relief," Penny and Garcia are owners of a tract of land within the limits of the City and within the boundaries of the Drainage District and Irrigation District. Penny and Garcia are subdividing this land as Strawberry Fields Subdivision. The petition alleged:

Since about 1983, Cameron County has required that subdivision plats be submitted to irrigation and drainage districts for approval. Under Cameron County's subdivision regulations, proof that a district has reviewed and approved the plat "may be noted on the face of the plat . . . ." Since about 1983, subdividers have submitted to [the City] subdivision plats of land within [the City's] limits and extra-territorial jurisdiction with Plaintiff Drainage District's and Plaintiff Irrigation District's approval noted on the face of the plats.

According to the first amended petition, the Drainage District and Irrigation District both use a "sign-off paragraph" or "signature block" on the face of a plat to indicate that they approve the plat with certain specified limitations. The first amended petition alleged that "[i]nitial purchasers and their successors-in-title acquire title subject to all matters shown and stated on the subdivision plat" and that each district "has a legitimate, governmental purpose of not only putting purchasers on notice" that each district "has reviewed and approved the plat, but more importantly, the terms, conditions, and limitations of said approval."

The first amended petition stated that the City had accepted plats including the districts' sign-off paragraphs since approximately 1983; however, in 2018, the City began telling subdividers that it would not approve subdivision plats that included the districts' sign-off paragraphs. The districts protested, and the City continued to approve plats that included the sign-off paragraphs for some indeterminate period. However, in December 2018, the City refused to consider two plats, including the Strawberry Fields plat, unless the districts' sign-off paragraphs were removed.

The first amended petition further alleged, in relevant part:

At the hearing held in this cause held on February 26, 2019, [the City] announced in open court that it only intends to require the removal of Plaintiff Drainage District's sign-off paragraph and Plaintiff Irrigation District's sign-off paragraph on plats subdividing land entirely within its limits. That is, it concedes that [it] cannot order the removal of Plaintiff Drainage District's sign-off paragraph and Plaintiff Irrigation District's sign-off paragraph from subdivision plats of land that in whole or in part [are] within [the City's] extra-territorial jurisdiction and, since the City of Harlingen also requires subdivision plats to be submitted to drainage and irrigation district[s], land that straddles the common limits of the City of Harlingen and [the City].

In their pleading, the plaintiffs asserted that the City could only apply those ordinances, rules, and regulations that it has adopted in accordance with Texas Local Government Code § 212.002; that the City had not adopted any ordinance, rule, or regulation prohibiting the sign-off paragraphs; and that there was no rational relationship between the City's refusal to entertain the sign-off paragraphs and a "legitimate governmental purpose." See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 212.002 (allowing the governing body of a municipality to "adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions of land within the municipality's jurisdiction to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the municipality and the safe, orderly, and healthful development of the municipality"). The plaintiffs further alleged that there was "no law authorizing" the City "to negate and require non-compliance with the rules and regulations" of the districts, and that the City's actions have placed subdividers in the position of either bypassing the districts, that is, failing to follow the districts' rules regarding plats, or having the City refuse to approve a proposed plat. The plaintiffs alleged that the districts' approval of a plat on its face "is not inconsistent with, and does not usurp, the City's subdivision ordinances, rules and/or regulations" and each district "has a legitimate need and purpose to review subdivision plats [and] evidence their approval on the face of the plats."

The plaintiffs alleged that they had been damaged by the City's requirement that subdividers "bypass" the districts in order to obtain approval of their subdivision plats and that the plaintiffs lacked an adequate remedy at law to remedy this harm. In terms of relief, the plaintiffs sought mandamus relief and a mandatory injunction preventing the City, "its Mayor, City Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, any other commissions, employees, committees, agents, and servants, directly or indirectly" from requiring the districts to remove their sign-off paragraphs and from refusing to approve plats that include their sign-off paragraphs. The plaintiffs further sought a declaratory judgment providing that the City had no legitimate, rational, governmental purpose in prohibiting the use of sign-off paragraphs in subdivision plats. The plaintiffs requested temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the City and its agents from requiring the removal of the sign-off paragraphs or refusing to approve plats including the sign-off paragraphs. Finally, they sought costs of suit, including attorney's fees, and "all relief, both general and special, at law and in equity," to which they were entitled.

The City filed a "Plea to the Jurisdiction and Subject Thereto, its Motion to Dismiss, Original Answer, and Motion for Special Exceptions." The plea to the jurisdiction comprises one paragraph and states:

[The City] has since its original pleading, raised the jurisdictional defense of "governmental immunity from suit." On March 13th, 2019 the [plaintiffs] filed their First Amended Petition in which they named two additional plaintiffs. [The City] would show that despite this opportunity to replead, the [plaintiffs] have still failed to show why [the City] does not have governmental immunity from suit. The [plaintiffs] have also failed to point to any specific waiver of legislative immunity in their Petition. The Court should dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, give [the plaintiffs] an opportunity to file an amended petition under the fair notice standards of TRCP 45 and 47, alleging a claim under an applicable statute which contains a legislative waiver of immunity thereby making their claim viable.

The City had also previously filed a "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the [City's] Motion to Dismiss and Plea to the Jurisdiction." Through this memorandum, the City argued that the "primary goal of this lawsuit is to force [the City] to perform a discretionary act of government; specifically, to approve subdivision plats within the incorporated city limits of [the City] in a manner not required by statute and that [the plaintiffs] alone deem appropriate." The City alleged that the plaintiffs "are using the judicial process in an effort to impermissibly control one of the City's important governmental functions: the planning and regulation of the subdivision plats within the incorporated municipal city limits of San Benito." The memorandum surveys law pertaining to governmental immunity and asserts that the City "has governmental immunity from suits seeking to dictate how its officials exercise their discretionary authority."

In the memorandum, the City acknowledged that "this is an action for declaratory/injunctive relief and not a suit for money damages," but asserted that "governmental immunity offers subdivisions of the State of Texas protection from the use of litigation to control decision making." The City conceded that the Texas Supreme Court has "long" recognized an exception to immunity for suits brought directly against governmental officials, on the grounds that those officials have acted in a manner which is ultra vires or outside of their statutory authority, and thus, "the doctrine of sovereign immunity would admittedly not apply to claims for injunctive relief seeking to force governmental officials to follow the law or to quit acting outside the scope of their lawful authority." The City further asserted, however, that a state official's illegal or unauthorized actions are not actions of the City, and the City "would not be a proper party to such an action."

The record before this Court does not indicate that the plaintiffs filed a response to the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing on the City's plea to the jurisdiction on March 19, 2019. The City did not provide this Court with the transcript of that hearing. On April 4, 2019, the trial court signed an order denying the City's plea to the jurisdiction. The order does not include the rationale for the trial court's decision.

Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allows an interlocutory...