the City of Austin and Marc A. Ott, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of Austin v. Utility Associates, Inc. And Mr. v. Bruce Evans, a Resident of Austin, Texas, Individually, 03-16-00565-CV

Background

Utility Associates and taxpayer Bruce Evans sued the City of Austin and City Manager Marc Ott after the City awarded a body-camera contract to Taser; Plaintiffs alleged the award violated Local Government Code (LGC) chapter 252 and was to a non-responsive, higher-priced bidder.
Utility originally sought declaratory relief under the UDJA that the procurement and award were unlawful and ancillary injunctive relief to prevent contract execution.
After suit was filed and a TRO hearing was being scheduled, City officials hurried to execute the contract (the “midnight signing”), after which Plaintiffs amended to add an LGC §252.061 injunction claim to stop contract performance.
Trial court granted the defendants’ plea to the jurisdiction dismissing Plaintiffs’ UDJA and ultra vires claims (including the request for UDJA attorneys’ fees).
On appeal Plaintiffs argue the UDJA provides prospective declaratory relief distinct from LGC §252.061 injunctive remedies, that disputed jurisdictional facts (e.g., nonresponsiveness and scoring manipulation) precluded dismissal, and that fee recovery under the UDJA is necessary to deter public corruption.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held/Relief Sought
Whether UDJA claims are precluded or redundant because LGC ch.252 supplies the remedy	UDJA allows prospective declaratory relief (rights/status) distinct from LGC §252.061 injunctive relief; UDJA is not displaced by LGC	LGC §252.061 is the proper, exclusive vehicle for relief relating to illegal contracts and therefore precludes redundant UDJA claims	Plaintiffs argue trial court erred in dismissing UDJA claims; they ask reversal and remand so declaratory claims proceed
Whether the action is primarily injunctive (invoking injunction venue/statute) or primarily declaratory	Action was initially declaratory (sought declaration award void and that Utility was highest scoring responsible offeror); injunctive relief was ancillary—defendants’ post-filing contract signing doesn’t convert nature of suit	Defendants contend plaintiffs’ claims are essentially injunctive and subject to LGC limitations/mootness arguments	Plaintiffs maintain the suit is primarily declaratory; disputed factual record on timing defeats PTJ
Whether City officials acted ultra vires by awarding to a non-responsive bidder and manipulating scores	Plaintiffs produced evidence that Taser’s proposal failed mandatory requirements and pricing; City nonetheless ranked Taser above responsive Utility and manipulated score reductions	Defendants claim plaintiffs’ evidence is self-serving and lack objective credibility; no unlawful exercise of discretion	Plaintiffs argue disputed material facts exist; those factual disputes should preclude dismissal and go to the trier of fact
Whether UDJA attorneys’ fees should be available to taxpayers/bidders who challenge corrupt procurements	Fee awards under UDJA (§37.009) are equitable and necessary to incentivize citizen enforcement of public procurement and deter corruption; plaintiffs already saved taxpayers substantial funds	Defendants seek to avoid fee exposure and judicial review by narrowing remedies under LGC	Plaintiffs urge reversal of dismissal of fee claim so courts may exercise discretion to award fees when equitable and just

Key Cases Cited

Camarena v. Tex. Employment Com’n, 754 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. 1988) (mootness and live controversy principles preserve fee claims).
In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. 1998) (distinguishing declaratory-judgment suits from purely injunctive suits for venue and remedy purposes).
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (when jurisdictional and merits facts are intertwined, disputed material facts preclude dismissal).
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (ultra vires claims provide non-damages relief—injunctive or declaratory—against illegal official acts).
Kassen v. Hatley, 887 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. 1994) (official immunity protects discretionary acts, not illegal acts; officials have no discretion to violate law).