345 S.W.3d 784
Tex. App.2011Background
- Lopez sued relator (a local government entity) under the Whistleblower Act in Dallas County.
- Relator sought to transfer venue to Tarrant County; the trial court denied the transfer.
- Whistleblower Act § 554.007(b) permits suit in the county where the action arises or in a county in the same geographic area with a regional council.
- Dallas County and Tarrant County are in the same geographic area and have such a council, so venue is potentially permissive under the Act.
- Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 15.015 provides a mandatory venue for actions against a county in that county; the trial court treated venue as non-transferable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 15.015 controls over the Whistleblower Act venue provision. | Lopez argues the Whistleblower Act permissive venue governs. | Relator argues § 15.015 is mandatory and controls. | Yes; § 15.015 controls, mandating transfer if appropriate. |
| Whether the Whistleblower Act venue remains permissive after amendments and can be waived by the county. | Lopez argues amendments render Act mandatory or non-waivable. | Relator argues permissive venue remains and waiver is possible. | Permissive venue remains; a county may waive its right to mandatory venue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wichita County v. Hart, 917 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1996) (mandatory venue provision controls over permissive statute in Whistleblower Act context)
- In re Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 998 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding; mandamus relief for venue issues)
- Scott v. Wichita Cnty., 248 S.W.3d 324 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (venue may be waived if not challenged timely, even if mandatory in another county)
- G.N.B., Inc. v. Collin Cnty. Appraisal Dist., 862 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993) (Code Construction Act considerations on permissive vs mandatory language)