Dobbin Plantersville Water Supply Corporation v. Montgomery County Municipal Utility District No. 180
4:23-cv-01583
S.D. Tex.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Dobbin Plantersville Water Supply Corporation (Dobbin) previously held a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) to supply water to Magnolia Springs, Texas.
- In 2019, Sig Magnolia, a developer, purchased land in Dobbin’s service area and promoted the creation of Montgomery County Municipal Utility District No. 180 (MUD 180) to provide water to new homes on the property.
- Sig Magnolia petitioned the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to decertify Magnolia Springs from Dobbin’s CCN, which the PUC granted in 2022.
- Dobbin’s first federal suit (against the PUC and Sig Magnolia) was dismissed for lack of standing, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, finding Dobbin’s claims not redressable by the court.
- Dobbin then sued MUD 180, arguing § 1926(b) under federal law barred the new provider’s service, and sought injunctions and declaratory relief against MUD 180; MUD 180 moved to dismiss.
- The district court granted MUD 180’s motion to dismiss, holding Dobbin lacked Article III standing as it no longer had a legal right to serve the area after decertification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to Sue Under § 1926(b) | Dobbin retained §1926(b) rights; PUC order void under preemption | Dobbin lost legal right to serve area post-decertification | Dobbin lacks standing; lost right to serve |
| Redressability of Injuries by Court Action | Blocking MUD 180 would restore Dobbin ability to serve | Only PUC can restore right; court can’t grant effective relief | No redressable injury; relief wouldn’t restore right |
| Effect/Validity of Decertification Order | Decertification under preempted statute is void | Order remains in effect; Dobbin can’t challenge it here | Dobbin cannot collaterally attack PUC order |
| Right to Equitable/Constructive Trust Relief | Seeks constructive trust over new infrastructure | No entitlement; MUD 180 lawfully acquired infrastructure | No basis for constructive trust |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Valley Special Utility District v. City of Schertz, 969 F.3d 460 (5th Cir. 2020) (To claim § 1926(b) protection, provider must have both legal right and capacity to serve the area)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Sets standard for Article III standing—injury in fact, traceability, redressability)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (Redressability essential for standing; courts can intervene only with tangible benefit to plaintiff)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (Clarifies standards for standing and redressability for federal claims)