City of Houston v. Kallinen, 516 S.W.3d 617

Randall Kallinen requested City of Houston records under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) about a traffic‑light camera study; the City withheld some documents and sought an AG opinion.
Kallinen sued for mandamus to compel disclosure before the Attorney General issued an opinion; the trial court ordered disclosure and later awarded attorney’s fees after a bench trial on fees.
The court of appeals initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded to resolve remaining issues (Kallinen I).
On remand the City argued the case was moot because it produced documents after the trial court’s order, asserted governmental immunity/incorrect respondent naming, and contested the fee award’s reasonableness and segregation.
The trial court’s amended final judgment: declared the withheld documents public, compelled disclosure, found Kallinen a prevailing party, and awarded $92,176 in fees plus conditional appellate fees; the City appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of fee claim	City’s production complied with order, but Kallinen says production was not voluntary and controversy remains	City: producing documents before final judgment moots fee claim	Not moot—continued dispute and post‑judgment appeals kept controversy alive; trial court retained jurisdiction to award fees
Proper respondent / governmental immunity	PIA authorizes suit against governmental body; fees statute expressly makes governmental body liable	City: immunity protects it because public information officer—not City—should be named	Immunity waived by PIA as to fees; governmental body is a proper respondent under amended statute
Prevailing‑party entitlement under §552.323	Kallinen: compelled disclosure and final judgment constitute relief, so he substantially prevailed	City: plaintiff must obtain relief that materially alters relationship; KB suggests narrow prevailing‑party rule	Kallinen substantially prevailed—court‑ordered disclosure and final judgment satisfy §552.323 entitlement
Reasonableness / segregation of fees	Counsel presented detailed billing, testimony on factors, and segregated entries for co‑plaintiff	City: invoices addressed to co‑plaintiff, expert criticized fees, alleged failure to segregate unrecoverable time	Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence supported reasonableness and adequate segregation of fees recoverable under PIA

Kallinen v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. 2015) (Texas Supreme Court opinion reversing dismissal on jurisdiction and remanding)
Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (mootness and justiciability require live controversy at all stages)
Intercontinental Group P'ship v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (defining prevailing‑party concept and "relief on the merits")
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hallman, 159 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. 2005) (attorney’s‑fee claim can keep appeal from becoming moot)
AT&T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995) (discussing mandamus against governmental bodies vs. records officers)
Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental immunity for money damages absent waiver)
El Apple I, Ltd. v. Olivas, 370 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2012) (standard of review for attorney’s‑fee awards)
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (requirement to segregate recoverable and unrecoverable fees)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (trial court’s fact‑finding authority in bench trials)
In re Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 967 S.W.2d 358 (Tex. 1998) (effect of appeal on enforcement of judgment compelling production)