348 S.W.3d 44
Tex. App.2011Background
- UNT appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the City on the UDJA claim seeking a declaration of discount validity.
- The City contends section 63 of Senate Bill 7 and Education Code §105.203 negate the 20% discount after Sept. 1, 2007.
- Denton Municipal Electric (DME) is a municipally owned utility and UNT was a 20% discount customer since Sept. 1995 subsidized by other ratepayers.
- DME discontinued the discount Sept. 1, 2007; UNT withheld 20% of each bill starting Sept. 2007 and accrued a delinquency claim.
- In anticipation of appeal, the parties entered a settlement: dismissal of most claims, UNT may retain funds if UNT wins on appeal, or must repay if the City wins; post-settlement, the City sought to preserve its rights.
- The court ultimately held UNT immune from the UDJA claim, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction and reversing to allow amendment of pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does UNT have sovereign immunity blocking the UDJA claim? | UNT argues immunity precludes the City's UDJA claim. | City contends UDJA can yield declaratory relief notwithstanding immunity. | Yes; UNT immune, UDJA claim barred. |
| Did Section 63 sunset the 20% discount despite no repeal of §36.351? | UNT argues §36.351 remains effective; §63 does not terminate it. | City asserts §63 expired the discount by Sept. 1, 2007. | Section 63 caused expiration of the discount. |
| Is the UDJA claim a damages claim barred by sovereign immunity? | UNT claims UDJA relief does not amount to damages. | City seeks monetary relief through the UDJA declaration. | UDJA relief sought would impose damages; immunity applies. |
| Does the settlement arrangement affect sovereign immunity or jurisdiction? | Settlement cannot waive immunity; jurisdiction cannot be altered by contract. | Settlement attempted to preserve rights to money despite immunity. | Settlement cannot waive immunity or confer jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994) (DJ A challenges may waive immunity to join governmental entities; but no damages waiver.)
- IT-Davy v. City of Dallas, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (Ultra vires and declaratory relief do not waive immunity for money damages.)
- City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (Ultra vires and declaration cannot be used to obtain money damages against state.)
- Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432 (Tex. 1994) (DJ A allows challenging ordinances; may join agencies; not a damages waiver.)
- Texas Lottery Comm'n v. First State Bank of DeQueen, 325 S.W.3d 628 (Tex. 2010) (Footnote reliance on Heinrich used to deny immunity in certain statutory challenges.)
- Reata Construction Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (Sovereign immunity pertains to the state's liability and jurisdiction.)