Tara Partners, Ltd. v. Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp.
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 3030
Tex. App.2012Background
- Tara Partners sues CenterPoint for breach of contract, alleging overbilling for natural gas from Nov 2009 to Feb 2010 and seeking retroactive correction and damages.
- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. and later CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. file pleas to the jurisdiction; Tara amends to add CenterPoint as defendant and nonsuits CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
- GURA grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Railroad Commission or municipality over gas utility rates; Tara argues the claim is private contract and not subject to regulation.
- Railroad Commission letter indicates Tara Partners’ complaint is not subject to informal complaint process; matter in litigation remains within agency regulatory framework.
- Trial court grants CenterPoint’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismisses Tara Partners’ suit without prejudice; Tara appeals; the court affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction | Tara argues no exclusive jurisdiction; contract claim falls outside regulatory scheme | CenterPoint contends GURA grants exclusive original jurisdiction to the municipality or Railroad Commission for rates and services | Yes; trial court lacked jurisdiction and properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Entergy Corp., 142 S.W.3d 316 (Tex. 2004) (exclusive regulatory scheme; administrative remedy exhaustion preferred)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (standard for jurisdictional pleas)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (subject-matter jurisdiction burden on plaintiff)
- Mayhew v. Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (de novo review; jurisdictional questions)
- City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (statutory interpretation guiding agency jurisdiction)