413 S.W.3d 774
Tex. App.2013Background
- Blanco County Commissioners held three closed meetings about purchasing Johnson City property, with the proceedings tape-recorded.
- Afterward the Commissioners Court opened the meeting and adopted a purchase resolution.
- Riley, via open-records request, sought copies of the three closed-meeting recordings, which the Court denied.
- Riley filed suit under the Texas Open Meetings Act seeking declarations, mandamus, injunctive relief, and access to the recordings.
- The Commissioners Court and Commissioners moved to dismiss the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and lack of proper presentment under § 89.004.
- The district court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, and Riley appealed on multiple theories related to immunity, redundancy of declaratory claims, and presentment requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Open Meetings Act waives immunity for suits against the governmental body | Riley contends the Act allows suit against the governmental body for violations. | Court argued ultra vires against the body; immunity remains unless waived by statute. | Open Meetings Act waives immunity; district court erred on this point. |
| Whether Riley's declaratory-judgment claims are redundant of his open-meetings claims | Declaratory relief sought would clarify rights tied to open-meetings violations. | Redundant because relief is encompassed by existing enforceable remedies under the Act. | Declaratory claims are redundant and dismissed; not necessary separate relief. |
| Whether the 60-day presentment requirement of § 89.004 applies to Riley's claims | Presentment requirement does not bar his non-monetary mandamus/injunctive claims. | Claim must be presented before suit; requirement is jurisdictional and applicable. | Presentment not required for these non-monetary claims; district court erred in dismissing mandamus portion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep’t of Ins. v. Reconveyance Servs., Inc., 306 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. 2010) (open-meetings immunity is waivable by statutory provisions)
- Hays Cnty. v. Hays Cnty. Water Planning P’ship, 69 S.W.3d 253 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (open-meetings act waives immunity against governmental bodies)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (governmental entities immune in ultra vires actions; but act may waive immunity under Open Meetings Act)
- Universal Printing Co. v. Premier Victorian Homes, Inc., 73 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001) (no declaratory relief when redundant with enforceable remedy under statute)
- Strayhorn v. Raytheon E-Sys., Inc., 101 S.W.3d 558 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (declaratory judgments not available to create redundancy or attorney’s-fee relief)
- Lubbock Cnty. v. Trammel’s Lubbock Bail Bonds, 80 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2002) (purpose of § 89.004 is to encourage settlement of monetary claims against counties)
- Krier v. Navarro, 952 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (predecessor to § 89.004 applied to monetary-claim suits)
- Forge v. Nueces Cnty., 350 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2011) (divides on whether § 89.004 is jurisdictional; governs presentment)
- Dallas Cnty. v. C. Green Scaping, L.P., 301 S.W.3d 872 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009) (presentment/prerequisite discussion in context of open-meetings)