in Re City of Dallas
501 S.W.3d 71
| Tex. | 2016Background
- Navarro County, City of Corsicana, and Navarro College (collectively “Navarro”) filed a Texas Rule 202 petition in the Navarro County Court at Law to investigate a potential tortious-interference claim against the City of Dallas.
- The county court denied Dallas’s immunity-based plea to the jurisdiction, granted Navarro’s Rule 202 petition, and authorized depositions.
- Dallas sought interlocutory review; the court of appeals affirmed denial of the jurisdictional plea but narrowed the Rule 202 order by mandamus.
- The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed whether the county court had subject-matter jurisdiction to authorize Rule 202 discovery for an anticipated claim that likely exceeds the county court’s $200,000 monetary limit.
- Navarro’s pleadings alleged loss of about 200 jobs and significant tax-revenue loss, but did not specify a damages amount; counsel conceded that the anticipated lawsuit might be outside the county court’s jurisdiction if actually filed.
- The Supreme Court directed the county court to vacate its deposition order and first determine whether it has jurisdiction over the anticipated claim before proceeding with Rule 202 discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county court at law may authorize Rule 202 pre-suit discovery for an anticipated suit when the court may lack subject-matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy likely exceeds the court's limit | Rule 202 discovery is proper in county court because only discovery (not the suit) is sought, and the court can authorize depositions | County (Dallas) argued the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to authorize Rule 202 discovery for an anticipated action it could not adjudicate | Court held Rule 202 requires the court to have jurisdiction over the anticipated action; if it lacks jurisdiction, it cannot authorize such discovery |
| Whether the county court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte before granting Rule 202 relief | Navarro implicitly argued jurisdiction was unnecessary because only discovery was sought | Dallas argued and Court reiterated that subject-matter jurisdiction is mandatory and must be considered even if parties do not raise it | Court held the court must determine jurisdiction sua sponte and may not grant Rule 202 relief without jurisdiction over the anticipated claim |
| Whether governmental immunity defense alters the Rule 202 jurisdictional inquiry | Navarro did not rely on immunity to concede jurisdiction; primary focus was on discovery needs | Dallas raised governmental immunity in plea to jurisdiction but the parties did not argue lack of county-court jurisdiction on monetary limits | Court treated immunity separately but required the county court to resolve its jurisdictional limits (including monetary jurisdiction) before permitting discovery |
| Appropriate remedy when a trial court authorizes Rule 202 discovery without first resolving jurisdiction | Navarro sought to preserve discovery order | Dallas sought mandamus relief to vacate the discovery order until jurisdiction is resolved | Court conditionally granted mandamus: vacate deposition order and remand for the county court to determine jurisdiction; writ will issue if court fails to comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (subject-matter jurisdiction is essential to a court's power to decide a case)
- In re Doe (Trooper), 444 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. 2014) (Rule 202 pre-suit discovery requires the court to have jurisdiction over the anticipated action)
- In re Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d 932 (Tex. 2011) (party cannot obtain by Rule 202 what it would be denied in the anticipated action)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Brite, 215 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. 2007) (county courts at law are courts of limited jurisdiction and may lack jurisdiction over controversies exceeding statutory limits)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2004) (courts must determine subject-matter jurisdiction even if parties do not question it)
- M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2004) (court obligated to review jurisdictional issues sua sponte)
- Tune v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 23 S.W.3d 358 (Tex. 2000) (amount in controversy defined as the sum or value originally sued for in the jurisdictional context)