Weir Bros., Inc. v. Longview Economic Development Corp.
373 S.W.3d 841
Tex. App.2012Background
- Weir Bros., Inc. sued LEDCO and the LEDCO Directors for restraint of trade under the Texas Free Enterprise Act, plus fraud and breach of contract related to LEDCO’s award to a different bidder.
- Weir alleged LEDCO used an undisclosed local preference in its bid selection criteria.
- LEDCO and the Directors moved for plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity under the Development Corporation Act (the Act).
- The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Weir’s claims without prejudice to refiling.
- The issue on appeal is whether LEDCO and the Directors are immune and whether the dismissal should have been with or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity under the Act applies to LEDCO and directors | Weir contends no immunity due to article wording and lack of compliance with the Act. | LEDCO and directors argue they are immune as a Type A development corporation and its officials. | Yes; acts are governmental functions and immune under the Act. |
| Whether any statute waives immunity | Weir asserts statutory waivers exist but have not been clearly demonstrated. | Defendants contend no clear, unambiguous waiver exists. | Waivers not shown; immunity remains. |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice | Weir argues dismissal without prejudice allows cure by amendment. | Defendants argue it should be with prejudice only if cure is not possible, given Weir failed to cure. | Dismissal should be with prejudice; amended pleadings did not cure immunity issues. |
| Whether LEDCO’s incorporation language satisfied 504.004 | Weir claims articles did not expressly state governance under Chapter 504. | LEDCO argues its wording satisfies 504.004 by governing section references. | Articles satisfied 504.004; immunity supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texas Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (establishes governmental immunity as subject-matter jurisdiction defense)
- City of Dallas v. Turley, 316 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010) (plea to the jurisdiction governs immunity challenges)
- Tooke v. City of Mexia, 197 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. 2006) (waiver of sovereign immunity requires clear and unambiguous language)
- Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (guides when dismissal should be with prejudice after cure opportunities)
- Porter v. Grayson County, 224 S.W.3d 855 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2007) (cure opportunity analyzed for whether dismissal with prejudice is required)
- City of Weslaco v. Borne, 210 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2006) (government immunity for development corporations under Act)
- Rayl v. Borger Econ. Dev. Corp., 963 S.W.2d 109 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 1998) (development corporations’ actions deemed governmental functions)
- Borne v. City of Weslaco, 210 S.W.3d 791 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2006) (burden to overcome immunity by jurisdictional facts)