City of Pharr v. German Garcia, Anna Leal, Domingo Lopez Jr., San Juanita De La Fuente, and Ezequiel Perez
13-15-00409-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- In 2009 the City of Pharr and Jose Escamilla entered an Agreed Final Order permanently enjoining commercial use of Lot 65 (1301 Truman) consistent with Pharr zoning.
- Escamilla later sold Lot 65 to Easton Acquisition, which obtained rezoning from single-family residential to office-professional in 2013.
- In 2014 intervenors (Garcia and others), who had been parties in the county-court injunction case, sought enforcement of the Agreed Final Order; the county court granted the City’s motion to vacate/dismiss the injunction, finding changed circumstances.
- Garcia then sued the City in the 430th District Court asserting (a) declaratory relief to void the rezoning and reinstate the injunction, (b) inverse condemnation, and (c) ultra vires claims against city officials; the district court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction on declaratory and inverse condemnation claims but dismissed the ultra vires claims.
- On interlocutory appeal the court evaluated (1) whether the district court had jurisdiction over the declaratory-judgment request to reinstate a county-court order, (2) the inverse-condemnation claim jurisdictional facts, and (3) the validity of ultra vires claims against officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief to reinstate county-court injunction | Garcia sought district court order voiding rezoning and reinstating county-court injunction | City argued only the county court that rendered the injunction had jurisdiction to reinstate or enjoin enforcement of its judgment | Court: Lack of standing; district court lacked jurisdiction — plea should have been granted (declaratory judgment reversed) |
| Jurisdiction for inverse condemnation claim | Garcia alleged rezoning damaged property value and asserted inverse condemnation under Tex. Const. art I, §17 | City argued lack of jurisdiction or insufficient showing to raise jurisdictional fact issue | Court: Evidence raised disputed material facts; plea properly denied as to inverse condemnation (claim proceeds) |
| Ultra vires claims against city council/planning officials | Garcia alleged officials acted outside authority / failed ministerial duties by rezoning despite injunction | City argued actions were discretionary and within authority; sovereign immunity bars official-capacity liability | Court: Ultra vires claims dismissed with prejudice; plea properly granted as to ultra vires claims |
| Overall plea to the jurisdiction | Garcia asserted multiple grounds to keep suit alive | City argued sovereign immunity/venue/jurisdiction defects and that county court ruling controls | Court: Affirmed in part and reversed in part — inverse condemnation allowed to proceed; declaratory-judgment claim dismissed; ultra vires claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for plea to the jurisdiction and when jurisdictional facts are disputed)
- Butron v. Cantu, 960 S.W.2d 91 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997) (action to enjoin a judgment must be brought in the court that rendered the judgment)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (plea-to-jurisdiction review and resolving jurisdictional facts akin to summary judgment principles)
- Kopplow Dev., Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 399 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. 2013) (inverse condemnation framework under Texas Constitution)
- Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (when lack of jurisdiction is not apparent on the face of the pleading, defendant must produce evidence of fraudulent or jurisdiction-defeating facts)