HS Tejas, LTD. v. City of Houston
462 S.W.3d 552
Tex. App.2015Background
- HS Tejas sued City of Houston claiming 2006 ordinance amendments substantially restricted development of multiple parcels, alleging a regulatory taking; the ordinance was later amended in 2008 to partially restore permit discretion.
- This is the third appeal; earlier interlocutory appeals (HS Tejas I and II) addressed ripeness and whether the second amended petition on its face alleged a concrete injury sufficient for jurisdiction.
- After HS Tejas II, the City filed a no-evidence summary-judgment motion and a merits-oriented plea to the jurisdiction alleging no evidence of intentional City action, causation, or public use; the City presented no evidence with its plea.
- HS Tejas responded with evidence (ordinance, valuation report estimating $300,000 lost rental value) and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, then granted the plea and dismissed the case; no ruling was made on the separate summary‑judgment motion.
- The court of appeals held the City improperly used a no-evidence approach in its jurisdictional plea, shifting the burden to HS Tejas; because the City failed to present evidence negating jurisdictional facts, the plea should have been denied and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City’s plea to the jurisdiction was proper when framed as a no-evidence challenge | HS Tejas: City cannot shift burden by filing a no-evidence plea; plaintiff need not marshal proof absent defendant evidence negating jurisdiction | City: no evidence exists to support elements of a taking (intent, causation, public use) | Court: Sustained HS Tejas; City failed to meet movant’s burden to negate jurisdictional facts by presenting evidence; plea improperly granted |
| Whether appellate-court may consider new jurisdictional challenges raised first on appeal | HS Tejas: New arguments should be rejected or treated with remand because record was not developed | City: Record and judicially noticed documents conclusively show no taking, causation, or damages | Court: New issues implicating jurisdiction may be considered, but record here does not conclusively negate jurisdiction; HS Tejas must be given opportunity to develop record on new issues |
| Ripeness of federal takings claims relative to state claims | HS Tejas: Federal and state takings claims may be considered together when analysis overlaps | City: Federal claims unripe until state proceedings resolved | Court: Rejected bright-line rule; declined to dismiss federal claims as unripe given overlapping analysis and lack of adequate presentation by City |
| Remedy — dismissal vs. remand for further proceedings | HS Tejas: Trial dismissal was improper without City proving lack of jurisdiction by evidence | City: Dismissal was proper based on record (as supplemented) | Court: Reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (framework for pleas to the jurisdiction and when evidence must be considered)
- Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (plaintiff need not prove claim to overcome plea unless defendant presents evidence negating jurisdictional facts)
- Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Woods, 388 S.W.3d 785 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (no-evidence summary-judgment approach cannot be used to challenge subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88 (Tex. 2012) (standards for raising jurisdictional defects for first time on appeal and when remand is required)
- Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012) (takings analysis is fact-specific; federal and state takings claims may be considered together)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (ad hoc multifactor regulatory takings test)
- Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (U.S. 1992) (categorical total takings doctrine)
- Hallco Texas, Inc. v. McMullen County, 221 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. 2006) (discussion of ripeness interplay between state and federal takings claims)