Mike Rawlings, Mayor v. Timoteo F. Gonzalez, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 8957

Appellants, Mayor and City Council members, sought reversal of a trial court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction and won; the appellate court reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Appellees were appointed as municipal court judges in 2010 for a term ending May 31, 2012; none were reappointed in 2012, though all were candidates for reappointment.
Candidates alleged the 2012 selection violated Dallas City Code and Dallas Transportation Code, asserting the Judicial Nominating Commission list was ignored and additional candidates were improperly added.
They also alleged that recommendations asked nominees to commit to maximum fines in traffic cases, violating Transportation Code § 720.002(b)(2).
The petition sought a declaratory judgment and injunction; the ordinance appointing 2012 judges had been published, and TRO relief was short-lived; petition did not seek reinstatement or reappointment.
The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction; on appeal, it was determined the petition sought an advisory opinion and lacked a justiciable controversy, standing, and ongoing injury; the relief sought could not affect the judges or offices already appointed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the petition allege a justiciable controversy with standing?	Gonzalez et al claim personal aggrievement and rights warrant declaratory relief.	Council asserts lack of standing and no ongoing injury; seeks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.	Pleadings fail to show justiciable controversy or standing; issues sustain dismissal.
Is declaratory relief appropriate where relief would be advisory or moot?	Declaratory judgment would resolve the asserted violations.	Relief would be advisory and moot since the ordinance has already been published and actions completed.	Declaratory relief is inappropriate; advisory opinions not permitted and mootness defeats jurisdiction.
Are quo warranto or other remedies the exclusive path to challenge public office occupancy?	Not explicitly argued in terms of office occupancy remedies.	Quo warranto is the exclusive remedy to test right to hold public office.	Court sustains that the relief sought does not implicate a valid quo warranto pathway; jurisdiction lacking.
Did mootness and lack of live controversy defeat jurisdiction regardless of standing or advisory opinion?	Capable of repetition but evading review preserves controversy.	No reasonable expectation of same action recurring for individual petitioners; mootness bars relief.	Mootness and lack of live controversy defeat jurisdiction; petition cannot be cured by amendment.

Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (plea to jurisdiction is dilatory; jurisdictional questions are governed by law)
City of McKinney v. OH Skyline/380, L.P., 375 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (de novo review of plea to jurisdiction; jurisdictional determinations reviewed with liberal pleadings)
OHBA Corp. v. City of Carrollton, 203 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2006) (declaratory judgments require justiciable controversy and cannot be advisory)
Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (mootness doctrine; repetition but evading review exceptions are rare)
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (declaratory judgments cannot resolve abstract questions; no advisory opinions)