Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Emmett
459 S.W.3d 578
| Tex. | 2015Background
- Harris County Flood Control District (the District) adopted Project Brays to widen/deepen Brays Bayou, which required demolishing and rebuilding multiple City-controlled bridges, including the Forest Hill Street Bridge where AT&T had facilities. Demolition would require utilities to relocate.
- The District entered an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Houston making the District Project Manager and enabling the District, by written request, to have the City issue relocation notices to utilities (at the utilities’ expense under City law).
- AT&T refused to relocate at its own expense and sued the City, the City engineer (Marcotte) in his official capacity, and County Commissioners (official capacity) seeking a declaratory judgment that Texas Water Code § 49.223 requires the District to pay relocation costs and an injunction against removal.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the City and Marcotte and sustained Commissioners’ plea to the jurisdiction; the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reviewed whether § 49.223 obligated the District to pay relocation costs and whether officials’ actions fell within the ultra vires exception to governmental immunity.
- The Court concluded the District exercised its statutory powers (by adopting Project Brays and contracting with the City) and thereby “made necessary” the relocations under § 49.223, so the statute required the District to pay relocation costs; Commissioners’ conduct in refusing to comply was ultra vires but Marcotte acted with lawful authority under the City ordinance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District "made necessary" relocation under Tex. Water Code § 49.223 | AT&T: District’s adoption of Project Brays and its contractual authority over the City caused the need to relocate; statute requires district to pay when its exercise of power makes relocation necessary | District/City: The City — not the District — made relocation necessary; availability of alternative plans and City’s control over bridges preclude § 49.223 liability for the District | Held: District’s exercise of power (adoption of Project Brays and contract authority) made relocation necessary; § 49.223 applies and requires the District to pay relocation costs |
| Whether Commissioners’ actions were protected by governmental immunity | AT&T: Commissioners’ refusal to authorize payment and instruction to have City issue relocation notices was an anticipatory, ministerial/statutory-duty breach (ultra vires), so immunity does not bar declaratory/prospective relief | Commissioners: No ultra vires act alleged; immunity bars suit for monetary relief | Held: Commissioners acted ultra vires by failing to perform the ministerial duty imposed by § 49.223; plea to the jurisdiction was improperly granted |
| Whether Marcotte (City official) is immune for issuing relocation notice under City ordinance | AT&T: Marcotte’s issuance effectuated the relocation demand despite District’s statutory obligation; ultra vires exception applies | Marcotte/City: Marcotte acted pursuant to City ordinance and had lawful authority; acts were discretionary/authorized | Held: Marcotte acted with lawful authority under City ordinance; no ultra vires exception — summary judgment for Marcotte affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Sewell, 858 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1993) (statutes imposing liability that depart from common law are strictly construed)
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d 39 (Tex. 2014) (statutory words given their plain and common meaning absent definition or context requiring otherwise)
- Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Harris Cnty. Toll Rd. Auth., 282 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2009) (common-law rule that utilities bear relocation costs absent legislative action)
- Air Liquide Am. Corp. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 359 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2004) (allocation of pipeline relocation costs and analysis of authority under interagency/cooperation agreements)
- State v. City of Austin, 331 S.W.2d 737 (Tex. 1960) (legislative reimbursement to utilities for relocations does not violate constitution when prospective and serving a public interest)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception to governmental immunity: suits against officers acting without legal authority or failing to perform purely ministerial duties are not barred)