Randall Kallinen and Paul Kubosh v. the City of Houston
462 S.W.3d 25
| Tex. | 2015Background
- Requestor Randall Kallinen sought City of Houston documents about a traffic‑camera study under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA); the City produced some documents but withheld others and timely requested an Attorney General (AG) ruling.
- The AG has statutory time to rule; before the AG issued an opinion, Kallinen sued for a writ of mandamus under Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321(a) to compel disclosure.
- The AG closed his file after the suit was filed (consistent with a then‑policy of not ruling on issues already in litigation). The City argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction until the AG ruled; the trial court denied the plea, granted summary judgment for Kallinen, ordered disclosure, and awarded attorney’s fees.
- The court of appeals held the trial court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over Kallinen’s suit until the AG ruled, reasoning that requestors must exhaust (or await) AG determinations.
- The Texas Supreme Court granted review, rejected the court of appeals’ exhaustion/ jurisdiction rule, and reversed, holding a requestor may sue under §552.321(a) before an AG ruling and that trial courts may, in their discretion, abate to await an AG opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear a PIA mandamus suit until the AG issues a ruling | Kallinen: §552.321(a) allows a requestor to sue immediately; requestors have no administrative remedy to ‘‘exhaust’’ | City: AG has primary authority to decide first; requestor must wait for AG ruling before suit | The court held requestors may sue before an AG ruling; jurisdiction exists and exhaustion is not required |
| Whether §552.321(a) requires an AG determination that information is public before suit | Kallinen: §552.321(a)(B)(1) covers withholding of public information and is not limited to AG‑determined public info | City: §552.321(a) must be read to require AG to first determine public status, making AG ruling prerequisite | The court rejected City’s reading as making statutory language surplusage and inconsistent with precedent |
| Whether AG decisions are exclusive and unreviewable | Kallinen: AG rulings are reviewable by courts; AG does not have exclusive, unreviewable authority | City: AG’s rulings are primary and should preempt court review until issued | The court reaffirmed that courts may review AG rulings and that AG does not have exclusive first‑instance jurisdiction |
| Whether courts should defer to AG via abatement | Kallinen: Requestor may choose to wait but is not required to; abatement is discretionary | City: Courts should abate pending AG decision as a primary‑jurisdiction matter | The court held abatement is available as a discretionary tool but not mandatory; courts may stay to await AG when appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) (PIA guarantees access subject to exceptions; courts review AG rulings)
- In re City of Georgetown, 53 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. 2001) (court review of AG open‑records decisions)
- City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351 (Tex. 2000) (courts interpret PIA exceptions without AG ruling)
- A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995) (discussing AG and litigation interaction on PIA questions)
- Chevron Corp. v. Redmon, 745 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. 1987) (statutory construction: avoid rendering language surplusage)
- Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2002) (discussing primary‑jurisdiction doctrine and agency expertise)