City of Houston v. Randall Kallinen, 01-12-00050-CV

Background

In late 2008 Kallinen submitted TPIA requests to the City of Houston for records about the City's red‑light camera study; Kubosh never submitted any TPIA request.
The City produced ~82% of responsive pages, withheld about 700 pages claiming privileges, and timely sought an Attorney General (AG) ruling.
Appellees sued the City under the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA) for mandamus and under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act (TDJA); they sued the City itself rather than a public information officer.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment to Appellees and ordered disclosure of many withheld documents; the City then produced those documents.
The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Appellees; after post‑judgment motions the court dismissed Kubosh for lack of standing and awarded fees only to Kallinen.
The First Court of Appeals dismissed Appellees for lack of jurisdiction; the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding a requestor need not await an AG ruling before filing suit, though abatement may be appropriate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a TPIA requestor may file mandamus suit before the Attorney General rules	Kallinen: TPIA authorizes a requestor to sue when the governmental body "refuses to supply public information," so suit may be filed without awaiting an AG ruling	City: The AG is the first arbiter under the TPIA; requestors must await the AG's decision (or the governmental body must have failed to request one) before a court has jurisdiction	Supreme Court: A requestor may file suit before an AG ruling; courts may, in discretion, abate to allow AG decision but AG ruling is not a jurisdictional prerequisite
Whether the City’s production of documents before final judgment rendered the mandamus and fee claims moot	City: Once the City produced the documents the controversy was moot and the court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction at final judgment	Appellees: Obtained interlocutory rulings and sought fees based on prevailing below	Trial court awarded fees; City argued mootness on appeal; courts recognized mootness can defeat justiciability and fee entitlement when no final judicially‑enforceable relief alters legal relationship
Whether suits were properly brought against the City (governmental immunity / proper defendant)	Appellees: sued the City (municipality) for disclosure and fees	City: TPIA mandamus claims must be brought against the public information officer (A & T Consultants); TDJA does not waive immunity for redundant declaratory claims; immunity defeats jurisdiction	Courts: Trial court initially entertained claims; City urged immunity and proper‑party arguments on remand; A & T Consultants and Heinrich principles limit suits against entities vs. officers
Whether attorney’s‑fee award was supported by evidence and allocable to the prevailing requestor	City: Fees unsupported, not segregated, and largely incurred by Kubosh (who lacked standing) — so Kallinen did not actually incur fees	Appellees: sought fees as substantially prevailing parties	Trial court awarded fees but record issues (segregation, billing details, who incurred fees) raised reversible error concerns; fee award subject to challenge on remand

Key Cases Cited

City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (distinguishes suits against governmental entities and ultra vires suits against officials; limits waiver of immunity)
A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995) (mandamus under the TPIA is properly directed to the public information officer rather than the governmental body)
Int'l Grp. P'ship v. KB Home Lone Star L.P., 295 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2009) (definition of "prevailing party" for attorney‑fee recovery requires judicially‑sanctioned relief that materially alters parties' legal relationship)
Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) (describing the PIA's public‑access framework and role of Attorney General)
Tex. State Bd. of Veterinary Med. Exam'rs v. Giggleman, 408 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013, no pet.) (holding voluntary production after interlocutory victory can moot a TPIA fee claim; discussion of "substantially prevailed")