Garcia v. Kubosh, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 4913

Kubosh and Pruett, bail bondsmen, challenged a statutorily-imposed $15 per-bond fee (up to $30 per individual) under Government Code § 41.258 as unconstitutional; Howard joined the prior suit but later ceded status.
The suit was dismissed for want of prosecution; bondsmen filed a bill of review alleging lack of notice of dismissal and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The fee funds are deposited into county treasury, with two-thirds going to an assistant-prosecutor fund and one-third to the fair-defense account; unexpended funds may transfer to the general revenue fund; the fee is refundable if the state declines to prosecute or indict.
Howard, who was not obligated to pay the fee, was found to have no standing to challenge the fee; the trial court held bondsmen had one surviving claim for deprivation of a tangible property interest—the $15 per bond—without due process of law.
The trial court denied some relief but disposed of other claims; on appeal, the court held that the surviving due-process claim was limited to deprivation of property and that sovereign-immunity issues precluded jurisdiction over that claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity barred the bondsmen’s surviving claim	Kubosh and Pruett argued sovereign immunity did not bar their equitable challenge	Sheriff and AG contended immunity shielded the state from the claim	Sovereign immunity governs; the surviving claim is barred and jurisdiction lacking
Whether the bondsmen pleaded a facially valid due process claim	Bondsmen contend the $15 fee deprives them of a property interest	State argues rational-basis review applies and fee is rationally related to legitimate interests	Bondsmen failed to plead a facially valid due process claim under rational-basis review
Whether the waiver of sovereign immunity applies to this case	Waiver applies if there is a facially valid constitutional claim	Waiver requires a viable facial constitutional claim; bondsmen failed to plead such claim	Waiver does apply only to facially valid claims; bondsmen’s claim fails

City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (equitable relief against state officials for constitutional rights actions waives sovereign immunity)
City of Elsa v. M.A.L., 226 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2007) (suits seeking injunctive relief may be brought against state entities for constitutional violations)
Little-Tex Insulation Co. v. Crawford, 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001) (immunity from liability; statutory waivers; contract-related claims)
United Somerset Corp., 274 S.W.3d 133 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) (interlocutory jurisdiction over new challenges to trial court’s jurisdiction under 51.014(a)(8) follows strict statutory reading)
Koseoglu v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (strictly construed 51.014(a) as narrow exception; jurisdiction limited to pleas to jurisdiction)
Gibson v. Waco Indep. Sch. Dist., 22 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2000) (discussion of standing and ripeness; foundational for jurisdictional analysis)
Davies v. City of Dallas, 158 S.W.3d 61 (Tex. App.-Tex. 2005) (interlocutory appeal limits review to claims raised in plea to jurisdiction)
Sykes v. City of Houston, 136 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. 2004) (immunity principles; distinctions between immunity from suit and liability)