584 S.W.3d 891
Tex. App.2019Background
- Greg and Laura Hatch sued the City of Plano under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), alleging Council members deliberated and decided Ordinance No. 2014-12-7 in secret before a public vote, produced inadequate certified agenda records, created a walking quorum, and provided misleading public notice.
- The Hatches sought declaratory relief (including a declaration that the Ordinance is void and that the City violated TOMA), injunctive relief, and mandamus (including TOMA training and records of training).
- The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing TOMA only waives immunity against individual council members (not the municipality), that declaratory relief is not waived, that any alleged violations were mooted or ratified by a later public meeting, and that some claims were improperly pled.
- The trial court denied the City’s plea; the City appealed interlocutorily. The appeals court reviewed the plea de novo, considering both the pleadings and submitted evidence relevant to jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court has jurisdiction over the Hatches’ requests for mandamus and injunctive relief and over their request to declare the Ordinance void, but lacks jurisdiction over the Hatches’ other declaratory-judgment requests. The cause was remanded for further proceedings limited accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TOMA waives immunity for suits against a city ("governmental body") | Hatches: TOMA permits suit against the governmental body; city may be sued under §551.142 | City: Waiver applies only to individual "members"; municipality retains immunity | Court: City is a "governmental body" under TOMA; waiver permits suit against the city |
| Whether TOMA waives immunity for declaratory relief generally | Hatches: Declaratory relief (including voiding ordinance and declarations of violation) is available | City: TOMA only waives immunity for mandamus and injunction; declaratory relief not waived | Court: TOMA waives immunity only for limited declaratory relief—specifically a declaration that an action is void—but not for other UDJA declarations |
| Whether subsequent public ratification moots pre-ratification TOMA claims | Hatches: Ratification resulted from prior secret deliberations and does not cure TOMA violations; relief remains justiciable | City: Subsequent public ratification and the December 8 public meeting cured earlier defects and mooted claims | Court: Ratification argument implicates the merits; insufficient to defeat jurisdiction at interlocutory stage; claim not moot for jurisdictional purposes |
| Whether mandamus and injunctive requests are justiciable and properly directed | Hatches: TOMA expressly authorizes mandamus and injunction to stop/reverse violations; relief proper against the city | City: Requests are speculative, based on improper declaratory relief, and misdirected against city rather than individual members | Court: These objections largely go to the merits; TOMA authorizes mandamus and injunction and the trial court has jurisdiction to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing pleas to the jurisdiction and when evidence may be considered)
- Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692 (Tex. 2003) (legislative waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unambiguous)
- City of Houston v. Houston Mun. Emps. Pension Sys., 549 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. 2018) (municipalities are "governmental bodies" under statutes defining that term)
- Riley v. Comm’rs Court of Blanco Cty., 413 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (open meetings waiver can permit suit against governmental bodies despite references to "members")
- Town of Shady Shores v. Swanson, 544 S.W.3d 426 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018) (TOMA waives immunity to declare an action voidable under §551.141)
- Schmitz v. Denton Cty. Cowboy Church, 550 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018) (same conclusion on limited declaratory relief under TOMA)
- City of New Braunfels v. Carowest Land, Ltd., 549 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017) (TOMA’s waiver limited to the remedies expressly provided—mandamus and injunction—and does not generally waive immunity for UDJA relief)
- Zachry Constr. Corp. v. Port of Houston Auth., 449 S.W.3d 98 (Tex. 2014) (scope of statutory waiver of immunity is constrained by the relief the statute expressly provides)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (limits on claims permitted against governmental entities and officials)
- Hays Cty. v. Hays Cty. Water Planning P’ship, 69 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (distinguishing jurisdictional questions from merits challenges in TOMA contexts)