City of Dallas v. Dallas Black Fire Fighters Ass'n
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8336
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Associations filed a Rule 202 petition January 13, 2011 to investigate potential claims against the City of Dallas related to a Meet & Confer Agreement governing police/fire employment matters.
- The petition sought to depose the Dallas police chief and fire-rescue chief to determine the propriety of filing litigation, not for harassment but to assess meritorious claims.
- Associations alleged the City violated the Agreement by using on-duty officers for events that should have used off-duty personnel and by misapplying grant-funded/overtime funds.
- The Agreement purportedly gave the City authority over overtime and the use of off-duty personnel for special events; amendments to City Code Chapter 42A were discussed.
- City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing lack of jurisdiction under the Local Government Code §147.007(b), lack of standing, and ripeness concerns; the trial court denied the plea and allowed the Rule 202 proceedings to proceed; this interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 202 does not waive immunity | Associations claim Rule 202 permits pre-suit discovery to investigate potential claims. | City argues Rule 202 is not a waiver of immunity and does not authorize investigation of a potential claim. | Rule 202 can aid an anticipated suit and does not by itself waive immunity. |
| Waiver under § 147.007(b) | Associations contend the City waived immunity by entering the meet-and-confer agreement. | City contends the agreement is not a basis for a §147.007(b) waiver; claims do not fall within written agreement obligations. | Waiver under §147.007(b) not satisfied on the pleaded facts; amendable but not currently proven. |
| Standing and ripeness moot | Associations allege a viable standing/confers rights under the agreement. | Arguments rely on lack of aggrievement or ripe claims. | Because the jurisdictional issues can be addressed via amendment, standing and ripeness moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas A&M Univ.-Kingsville v. Lawson, 87 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2002) (waiver context limited to settlements; not controlling here)
- Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tex., 212 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. 2006) (immunity from suit vs. liability; waiver requires clear expression)
- Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (pre-suit discovery aiding anticipated suit; joinder of proper official matters)
- City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005) (jurisdiction in similar pre-suit discovery context)
- In re Wolfe, - (Tex. 2011) (cited for rule 202 limitations (per curiam discussion))
- City of Houston v. Williams, 353 S.W.3d 128 (Tex. 2011) (immunity concepts and jurisdictional implications)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (immunity framework)
- Centennial Ins. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins. Cos., 803 S.W.2d 479 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1991) (rulemaking authority of Supreme Court; procedural limits)