Gatesco Q.M., LTD. v. City of Houston
333 S.W.3d 338
Tex. App.2010Background
- Gatesco Q.M., Ltd. d/b/a Quail Meadows Apartments owns a Houston-area complex and receives city water service.
- City of Houston assessed a $1,020.03 late fee for a payment deemed hours late, with no service disruption or related costs.
- Gatesco pursued administrative remedies; a hearing upheld the late fee.
- Gatesco obtained a TRO but the City shut off water service on February 5, 2007 in alleged retaliation; Gatesco later faced a security deposit demand exceeding $35,000.
- Gatesco amended its petition to include the late fee and security-deposit claims; the trial court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction; final judgment took effect later; Gatesco appeals challenging jurisdiction and immunities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 13.042(a) deprives trial court jurisdiction | Gatesco argues 13.042(a) does not apply since municipality excluded from utility definition | City contends 13.042(a) applies, giving municipal exclusive original jurisdiction | 13.042(a) does not deprive jurisdiction |
| Whether 13.042(d) deprives appellate jurisdiction | Gatesco contends 13.042(d) does not grant exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Commission | City asserts exclusive appellate jurisdiction exists under 13.042(d) | 13.042(d) does not give exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Commission |
| Whether Gatesco sufficiently pleaded a waiver of governmental immunity for constitutional declaratory relief | Waiver exists for declaratory relief challenging constitutionality of late fee and related actions | Immunity bars such declaratory relief not tied to a valid waiver | Constitutional declaration requests are waived and remanded for service issues; some relief allowed to proceed |
| Whether permanent injunction and certain declarations are barred by governmental immunity | Requests for permanent injunction and security-deposit declarations are proper declaratory relief | These requests are barred by immunity unless waived (ultra vires or constitutional claims) | Permanent injunction barred; some declaratory relief on deposits barred; constitutional-related relief remanded for amendment and service |
| Whether Gatesco may amend to plead a protected property interest for due-process claims | Gatesco should be permitted to amend to plead a property interest under Fourteenth Amendment or Texas Due Course of Law | No sufficient property-interest pleading currently; immunity may bar | Remand to allow amendment; if not pleaded, due-process requests may be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2010) (statutory waivers of immunity via declaratory judgments require clear language)
- City of Elsa v. M.A.L., 226 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. 2007) (waiver for declaratory judgments when challenging ordinances/constitutional grounds)
- Heinrich v. City of Houston, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires and immunity interplay in declaratory-judgment actions)
- Tara Partners, Ltd. v. City of S. Houston, 282 S.W.3d 564 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (precedent on 13.042; questioned exclusive jurisdiction interpretations)