Schmitz v. Denton Cnty. Cowboy Church, 550 S.W.3d 342

Background

Denton County Cowboy Church bought adjacent SF-2 lots, built an open-air rodeo arena (original tract) and later began constructing a large enclosed arena on a newly purchased adjoining 12-acre tract (new tract) adjacent to plaintiffs' homes.
The Church applied for a specific‑use permit and the Town posted public notices and held hearings; the council rezoned the new tract from SF-2 to AG and approved the special‑use permit after votes and an executive session under TOMA.
Appellants (Schmitz, Pollock, Larry LaDuke, Becky LaDuke) sued the Church and the Town seeking UDJA declarations, injunctive relief, § 1983 claims, and nuisance damages; they also sought a temporary injunction; defendants filed pleas to the jurisdiction.
The trial court denied the temporary injunction and granted pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing most claims; Appellants appealed. On rehearing the appellate court reconsidered and issued this memorandum opinion.
The appellate court held (1) most UDJA, § 1983, nuisance and permanent‑injunctive claims against the Town were barred by governmental immunity except narrow UDJA and injunction claims based on alleged TOMA violations; (2) Appellants lacked standing to seek declaratory/injunctive enforcement of the Town’s zoning against the Church, but Schmitz had standing for a private‑nuisance claim against the Church; (3) the trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the temporary injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over Appellants' UDJA/declaratory claims against the Town	Town violated its ordinances and TOMA; UDJA relief appropriate	Town asserted governmental immunity; UDJA waiver limited to invalidity of ordinances	Most UDJA claims dismissed for immunity; narrow UDJA claims and injunctions based on alleged TOMA violations survive (TOMA waives immunity)
Whether § 1983/regulatory‑takings claim against the Town is viable	Town’s rezoning/permit decisions amounted to a taking or due‑process violation under § 1983	Town argued immunity; takings claim invalid because it challenges enforcement/process, not affirmative government action	§ 1983/takings claim dismissed for lack of viable takings theory; Town immune
Whether Appellants have standing to seek declaratory and permanent injunctive relief against the Church to enforce Town zoning	Plaintiffs may enforce zoning violations against Church	Church argued enforcement is exclusively the municipality’s prerogative (no private standing)	Plaintiffs lack standing to enforce Town zoning against Church; these declaratory/injunctive claims dismissed
Whether plaintiffs have standing / ripe private‑nuisance claims against Church	Plaintiffs will suffer or are suffering particularized interference (noise, light, dust, odors)	Church argued injuries speculative as new arena not yet used/complete	Schmitz established particularized, imminent injury and has standing for nuisance; LaDukes and Pollock did not show a material fact issue and lack standing
Whether Appellants were entitled to a temporary injunction	Construction/use will cause imminent, irreparable harm; showed probable right to relief	Defendants produced evidence opposing plaintiffs’ likelihood of success and disputed harms	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying temporary injunction; denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Mission Consol. Independent School Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) (plea to the jurisdiction standard and burden on plaintiff)
Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT‑Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (plea to the jurisdiction principles)
Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate jurisdiction)
Tex. Department of Transportation v. Sefzik, 355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) (UDJA does not itself confer jurisdiction and waiver limited to ordinance validity)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (limits on UDJA waiver of immunity)
Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (municipal waiver of immunity must be clear and unambiguous)
Kirby Lake Development, Ltd. v. Clear Lake City Water Authority, 320 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. 2010) (statute contemplating litigation does not clearly waive immunity)
City of Dallas v. VSC, LLC, 347 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2011) (constitutional takings claim waives immunity but regulatory‑takings requires viable allegations of affirmative governmental action)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (temporary injunction elements)
Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (deference to trial court in temporary‑injunction rulings)