in Re City of Dallas
10-14-00171-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 20, 2015Background
- Navarro County, Navarro College, and City of Corsicana (Navarro) had 2009 tax-abatement agreements with Home Depot that provided liquidated damages if Home Depot failed to perform.
- In 2011 Home Depot entered a tax-abatement agreement with the City of Dallas and moved operations from Corsicana to Dallas; Navarro sued Home Depot and settled.
- Navarro filed a Rule 202 petition in Navarro County seeking presuit depositions to investigate a potential tortious-interference claim against Dallas for allegedly inducing Home Depot to breach Navarro’s agreements.
- Dallas filed pleas to the jurisdiction asserting sovereign/governmental immunity (arguing the tax-abatement negotiation was a governmental function) and also challenged the Rule 202 order that authorized depositions and document production.
- The trial court denied Dallas’s plea and granted the Rule 202 petition; Dallas appealed interlocutorily and sought mandamus relief as to portions of the Rule 202 order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Dallas is immune from suit | Navarro: Dallas’ conduct (luring Home Depot) is proprietary, not governmental, so no immunity | Dallas: Entering tax-abatement agreements is a governmental act immune from suit | Held: Denial of plea upheld — alleged interference in recruiting is proprietary and jurisdiction exists |
| Whether Rule 202 requires a viable pleaded claim before allowing presuit depositions | Navarro: Rule 202 is investigatory; need only state subject matter and interest, not a viable claim | Dallas: Navarro must plead a valid tortious-interference claim | Held: Court rejects Dallas — Rule 202 does not require pleading a viable claim to investigate potential claims |
| Whether the Rule 202 order improperly authorized production of documents without deposition or proper procedure | Navarro: Documents may be obtained in connection with authorized depositions under Rules 199/200 | Dallas: Order impermissibly allows document acquisition by other means | Held: Order valid to the extent documents are obtained under deposition rules; cannot be compelled outside deposition procedures |
| Whether the Rule 202 order improperly authorized depositions of unnamed/unserved persons disclosed only by produced documents | Navarro: Needs flexibility to pursue persons revealed by documents | Dallas: Order permits unlimited, unnamed, unserved depositions (improper) | Held: Court vacated the portion authorizing depositions of unnamed/unserved persons; depositions limited to named/served parties (City and its corporate representative) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Dallas v. Dallas Black Fire Fighters Ass’n, 353 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (Rule 202 does not itself waive governmental immunity)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea to jurisdiction standard; evaluate pleadings first)
- Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (standard of review for jurisdictional questions)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (governmental vs. proprietary function dichotomy for municipal immunity)
- City of Corpus Christi v. Absolute Industries, 120 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003) (acts interfering with contracts analyzed apart from the underlying statutory governmental function)
- PKG Contracting, Inc. v. City of Mesquite, 197 S.W.3d 388 (Tex. 2006) (distinguishable where Legislature statutorily classified certain functions as governmental)