the Port of Corpus Christi, LP v. the Port of Corpus Christi Authority of Nueces County
13-19-00378-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- POCC (a navigation district) sued The Port of Corpus Christi, LP (TPCC) for common‑law service‑mark infringement and related claims arising from TPCC’s 2014 formation and use of the name “The Port of Corpus Christi, LP.”
- POCC entered an MOU and later approved a long‑term Lease with Carlyle to develop a crude‑oil export terminal on Harbor Island; POCC publicly described the relationship as a public‑private partnership.
- TPCC counterclaimed alleging misconduct related to the Harbor Island Project: violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), the Public and Private Facilities Infrastructure Act (PPFIA), the Texas Water Code, ultra vires and unlawful delegation, breach of contract (sale on sealed bid), denial of easements, business disparagement, and § 1983 claims for equal protection and due process.
- POCC filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity and attacking standing and mootness; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed TPCC’s counterclaims after a non‑evidentiary hearing.
- After briefing and oral argument, POCC terminated the Lease; the court took judicial notice and considered whether that termination mooted TPCC’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of TOMA, PPFIA, Water Code, ultra vires, unlawful‑delegation, and related declaratory claims | Claims seek to void/enjoin the Lease; termination does not necessarily moot; exceptions apply (voluntary cessation, public interest) | Lease termination eliminates the live controversy | Lease termination rendered those claims moot; TPCC’s mootness exceptions (voluntary cessation, public‑interest) do not apply; dismissal of those claims vacated as moot. |
| Applicability of Reata (scope‑of‑immunity) to breach‑of‑contract counterclaim | TPCC: counterclaims re Harbor Island Project are germane/defensive and offset POCC’s marks claim (Reata) | POCC: breach claim is unrelated to service‑mark suit; immunity bars it | Reata does not apply—breach claim is not germane/connected to POCC’s service‑mark claim; immunity challenge stands. |
| Equal Protection (§ 1983) | TPCC: POCC selectively denied easements and selectively enforced name rules against TPCC versus similarly situated parties | POCC: pleadings fail to identify similarly situated comparators or show absence of rational basis | Pleading insufficient but not incurably defective; dismissal of the equal protection claim reversed and remanded for opportunity to amend. |
| Due Process (§ 1983 procedural) re easement requests | TPCC: POCC denied hearings/notice regarding easements, depriving TPCC of process | POCC: TPCC has no protected property interest in prospective easements | TPCC’s alleged expectation of an easement is not a vested property interest; due process claim lacks jurisdictional basis and dismissal was proper. |
| Business disparagement and Takings | TPCC asserted these claims as part of relief against POCC’s conduct | POCC: sovereign immunity bars intentional torts; takings pleading inadequate | Business disparagement is an intentional tort not waived by TTCA—dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; takings issue waived on appeal for inadequate briefing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental entity’s affirmative monetary claims do not bar defensive counterclaims germane to, connected with, and offsetting those claims)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction; when pleadings versus evidentiary challenges apply)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (purpose and nature of dilatory plea to the jurisdiction)
- Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468 (Tex. 2012) (takings pleading requirements and jurisdictional waiver analysis)
- Matthews v. Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist., 484 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2016) (voluntary‑cessation mootness principles)
- State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. 2018) (appellate courts’ duty to assess jurisdiction and mootness)