Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc.
357 S.W.3d 691
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Sunset Transportation, MEL Transport, and Sunset Prosper sue TxDOT and its executive director seeking declaratory relief under the UDJA and APA section 2001.038.
- District court denied appellants' plea to the jurisdiction in its entirety; the court’s ruling is appealed.
- Appellees contend TxDOT's UCR-related registration, insurance, and fee requirements (via the 2008 Revised Notice) exceed statutory authority and conflict with the UCR Act and state law.
- The Unified Carrier Registration Act preempts certain state intrastate registration and filing requirements for carriers operating both interstate and intrastate, influencing Texas Transportation Code chapter 643 and associated rules.
- Appellees registered with TxDOT pre-UCR, later registered under UCR; TxDOT revoked Sunset Transportation’s registration in 2008, but the dispute centers on ongoing regulatory requirements and potential preemption rather than the revocation itself.
- The court concludes appellees may amend to plead proper APA 2001.038 claims if they recharacterize the challenged rule as a formally promulgated TxDOT rule, and UDJA claims may be pursued pending repleading; the district court’s denial as to the UDJA claims is affirmed in light of the potential for amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is APA 2001.038 jurisdiction satisfied? | Sunset argues 2008 Revised Notice is a rule and grants jurisdiction under 2001.038. | TxDOT contends 2008 Revised Notice is not a rule and 2001.038 does not apply. | Jurisdictional defect; remanded for repleading to reclassify as a formal rule |
| Are UDJA claims barred or duplicative of APA claims? | UDJA seeks declarations about statutory/rule validity independent of APA. | UDJA relief would be duplicative if APA provides jurisdiction and remedies. | UDJA claims may proceed pending repleading; unrelated claims may be dismissed if duplicative |
| Do the pleadings suffice to invoke ultra vires jurisdiction at this stage? | Appellees allege ultra vires acts by TxDOT executive beyond statutory authority. | Labeling actions ultra vires is insufficient without facts showing lack of authority. | Not enough to invoke ultra vires jurisdiction without curative amendments |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plea-to-jurisdiction standards; live pleading governs)
- Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Comm'n on Envtl. Quality, 307 S.W.3d 505 (Tex. App.-Austin 2010) (ultra vires pleading standards; avoid merits resolution at jurisdiction stage)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity; prospective relief context)
- Texas Logos, L.P. v. Texas Dep't of Transp., 241 S.W.3d 105 (Tex. App.-Austin 2007) (APA 2001.038 jurisdictional scope; rule interpretation)
- Combs v. Entertainment Publ'ns, Inc., 292 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. App.-Austin 2009) (evidentiary standards for jurisdictional facts; pleading sufficiency)