Ted Lazarides, in His Official Capacity v. Grady Farris
367 S.W.3d 788
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- This is an interlocutory appeal from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in a groundwater diversion case where Lazarides, sued in his official capacity, challenged the trial court's jurisdiction after denial of summary judgment.
- Farris alleged Lazarides’s decisions enforcing drainage rules and issuing permits affected drainage from Farris’s property, including a back-to-front drainage rule allegedly conflicting with zoning regulations.
- Farris initially sued in his and his wife’s capacities; Lazarides moved for summary judgment on jurisdiction and the trial court denied it, with only Lazarides in official capacity remaining on appeal.
- The court addressed exhaustion of administrative remedies, standing, and ripeness as to ultra vires and declaratory/injunctive claims arising from Lazarides’s enforcement of city drainage guidelines.
- The court held that exhaustion generally bars official-capacity claims except for properly pleaded ultra vires claims, which may permit prospective declaratory and injunctive relief and require ripeness analysis.
- The court ultimately sustained the immunity-based defenses to damages, reversed as to official-capacity claims lacking jurisdiction (except ultra vires), and remanded ultra vires claims to permit amended pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction for official-capacity claims | Farris contends Lazarides’s official-capacity actions fall within the trial court’s jurisdiction. | Lazarides argues failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives jurisdiction over non-ultra vires claims. | Lack of jurisdiction as to non-ultra vires claims; proper for dismissal. |
| Ultra vires standing and ripeness | Farris seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief for Lazarides’s alleged ultra vires acts with standing and ripeness. | Lazarides contends ultra vires claims are moot or unripe and lack proper pleading. | Ultra vires claims may be revived on remand with opportunity to amend; ripe/standing not presently established. |
| Pleading ultra vires claims | Farris pleads ultra vires claims for back-to-front drainage rule and ministerial duties. | Pleading fails to show imminent harm, irreparable injury, or lack of remedy required for injunctive relief. | Remand with direction to allow liberal amendment to plead properly. |
| Election of remedies under §101.106 | Amended suit against Lazarides in official capacity not barred by earlier election. | Election of remedies bars later suits against the governmental unit. | Ultra vires claims are not barred by §101.106; may proceed against the official-capacity actor. |
| Damages against Lazarides | Farris seeks damages for flooding injuries. | Immunity limits damages in official-capacity suits. | Damages barred by governmental immunity; only prospective relief contemplated for ultra vires claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standard for jurisdictional challenges and pleading Liberally; when to grant amend.)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires claims allow prospective relief and injunctive relief, not retrospective damages.)
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (suit against state actors in official capacity except for ultra vires claims; immunity distinctions.)
- Larry Koch, Inc. v. Texas Natural Resources Conservation Comm’n, 52 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (statutory prerequisites and exhaustion principles apply to administrative actions.)
- Koseoglu v. Turkey, 233 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2007) (opportunity to amend pleading when jurisdictional pleading is insufficient.)
- Olivares v. Texas Department of Transportation, 316 S.W.3d 89 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (revise plea and amend when jurisdictional defects are not incurable.)