Joan Price v. the University of Texas at Brownsville Texas Southmost College, 13-16-00351-CV

Background

Joan Price sued UTB‑TSC in August 2011 for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Labor Code, alleging forced resignation (2005) and failure to rehire (2009, 2010).
UTB‑TSC filed a plea to the jurisdiction and summary judgment asserting sovereign immunity and that Price’s suit was untimely; a hearing was set for October 29, 2012.
Price’s counsel failed to appear at the October 29, 2012 hearing; the trial court granted UTB‑TSC’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the suit that day.
Price filed a Rule 165a(3) motion to reinstate (arguing counsel’s nonappearance was excusable) and later a petition for bill of review in 2016 seeking to vacate the dismissal and reinstate the suit.
UTB‑TSC moved to dismiss the bill of review for lack of jurisdiction; the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction after a hearing and dismissed Price’s bill of review; Price appealed.
The court held Price’s underlying discrimination suit was filed 62 days after she received TWC notice (outside the 60‑day statutory window), so the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the original suit and Price could not show a meritorious claim for bill of review purposes.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Price’s bill of review	Price argued she established the three elements for an equitable bill of review (meritorious claim, prevented by official mistake, no fault) and the court should reinstate the case	UTB‑TSC argued Price failed to plead prima facie proof of the elements, and the underlying suit was untimely so lacked jurisdiction	Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain bill of review because Price’s underlying suit was untimely, so she could not show a meritorious claim; dismissal affirmed
Whether counsel’s nonappearance and alleged clerk/court errors qualified as official mistake excusing relief	Price claimed official mistake (clerk delayed filing counsel’s fax; court’s January order implied relief) prevented timely proceedings	UTB‑TSC maintained procedural errors did not cure the jurisdictional defect or establish the equitable elements	Held: Even assuming official mistake, absence of a meritorious underlying claim (untimely suit) was dispositive
Whether Rule 165a(3) or Rule 329b governed reinstatement and whether time bars operated	Price argued reinstatement procedures and court scheduling errors extended timelines	UTB‑TSC argued the dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction (plea), so reinstatement procedure was improper and statutory time limits expired	Held: The dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction; the motion to reinstate/new trial time limits elapsed and did not salvage the claim
Whether governmental immunity or venue issues barred bill of review jurisdiction	Price did not address immunity for the equitable bill of review proceeding	UTB‑TSC noted governmental immunity may bar suits unless waived	Held: Court assumed bill‑of‑review rules applied but found dismissal appropriate on meritorious‑claim/jurisdictional grounds; immunity issue not resolved

Key Cases Cited

King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (elements and narrow scope of equitable bill of review)
Valdez v. Hollenbeck, 465 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2015) (bill‑of‑review pleading and prima facie proof requirement)
Mabon Ltd. v. Afri‑Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2012) (public policy favoring finality of judgments)
Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) (early statement of bill‑of‑review principles)
Garcia (Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia), 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (jurisdictional bar where administrative exhaustion/timeliness under Labor Code not met)
Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010) (bill of review must be brought in the court that rendered the challenged judgment)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (limitations on suit against governmental entities absent clear waiver)
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional questions)