City of Dallas v. Martin, 361 S.W.3d 560

Firefighters and police officers filed a class action against the City of Dallas claiming underpayment under a 1979 ordinance adopted by referendum.
The City asserted governmental immunity and later non-suited its counterclaim; the trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction and the City pursued an interlocutory appeal under §51.014(8).
During the appeal, the Legislature amended Local Government Code § 271.152 to provide a limited, retroactive waiver of immunity for certain local government contracts.
The Court of Appeals partially affirmed, reversed, and remanded for the trial court to consider the potential impact of the legislative amendment on immunity.
The lead opinion aligns with City of Dallas v. Albert, holding: (i) referendum-adopted ordinance did not strip immunity; (ii) immunity remains as to declaratory judgment; (iii) non-suiting counterclaim did not reinstate immunity for pending claims; (iv) remand to assess whether § 271.152 waives immunity.
The Officers argued immune waiver under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 37.006(b) but the pleadings did not challenge the ordinance or resolutions’ validity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do referendum-based pay ordinances waive immunity?	Officers argue the ordinance impliedly waives immunity through contract-related obligations.	City contends immunity remains despite the ordinance.	Immunity not waived by referendum adoption.
Does § 271.152 retroactively waive immunity for breach claims?	Officers rely on the statutory waiver to support breach claims.	City maintains immunity unless the waiver applies under the statute's terms.	Remand to determine whether § 271.152 provides a waiver in this context.
Is the City immune from the declaratory judgment claim?	Officers seek a declaration on pay rights, challenging city actions.	City retains immunity for declaratory relief related to immunity.	City has immunity from the declaratory judgment action.
Does non-suiting the counterclaim reinstate immunity for pending claims?	Counterclaim dismissal could affect immunity status for pending claims.	Non-suit does not reinstate immunity for ongoing claims.	Non-suiting did not reinstate immunity for Officers' pending claims.
Should the court consider § 37.006(b) waivers in this case?	Officers claim immunity is waived to examine validity of pay resolutions.	Pleadings do not challenge validity of ordinance or resolutions; no waiver shown.	Officers' pleadings do not support a § 37.006(b) waiver in this context.

City of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368 (Tex.2011) (immunity and § 271.152 analysis aligned with Albert)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex.2006) (waiver not clear and unambiguous in phrases like 'sue and be sued')
Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex.2006) (immunity does not apply to offsets in connected claims to germane affirmative claims)