OPINION
Aрpellants Waller County, Texas and its Commissioners Court consisting of County
Because thе procedural circumstances of this case do not demonstrate that any ruling of the trial court has resolved the County’s jurisdictional challenge'in the trial court and thereby effectively denied a plea to the jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.
Background
The City of Hempstead filed suit against Waller County, and CALH intervened as a plaintiff. The lawsuit challenges the County’s authority to prohibit the disposal of solid waste in certain areas of the County, by way of an ordinance relating to thе proposed creation of a landfill on a site that partially overlaps the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Waller County filed both a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for partial summary judgment on no-evidence and traditional grounds. In the no-evidence portion of the summary-judgment motion, the County argued, amоng other things, that there was no evidence to support a claim that the challenged ordinance was enacted without authority so as to invoke the distriсt court’s “general supervisory control” over the commissioners court. See Tex. Const, art. V, § 8.
The trial court entered an order denying Waller County’s motion for summary judgment, and it has not еxpressly ruled on the plea to the jurisdiction. At the conclusion of a hearing on the matter, the trial court explained that it was reserving its ruling on the jurisdictional challenge, stating:
The Court finds that the pleas to the jurisdiction by the defendants are not ripe for ruling and rather than conduct an evidentiary hearing and a trial on thе merits to ascertain and determine the facts, the Court finds that judicial economy dictates proceeding with jury selection and presentation of evidеnce commencing on December the 1st, 2014. The Court will make a ruling at the appropriate time.
This Court has denied a mandamus petition which sought to comрel a pretrial ruling on the jurisdictional plea, In re Waller Co., No. 01-14-00916-CV,
After we denied the mandamus petition, Waller County filed its notice of interlocutory appeal from the denial of its motion for summary judgment, which it characterizes as having effectively denied the plea to the jurisdiction. The appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of interlocutory appellate jurisdiction, and the County has filed a response to that motion.
Analysis
An immediate appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order of a district court that grants or denies a plea to the jurisdiction by a governmental unit. Tex. Civ. Prao. & Rem.Code § 51.014(a)(8). Waller County asserts that it is entitled to an interlocutory appeal and automatic stay of
The mandamus record previously filed and expressly relied upon by the County in its attempt to demonstrate appеllate jurisdiction instead shows that the trial court has not ruled on the jurisdictional issues raised in the plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court expressly refused to rule оn the issues raised in the plea to the jurisdiction on the basis that such issues were not ripe. The record independently supports the trial court’s oral characterization of its rulings, because the motion for summary judgment could have been denied due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact, without resоlving the merits of the jurisdictional plea. ‘Put another way, if we were to exercise interlocutory jurisdiction over this appeal and affirm the trial court’s ruling beсause of genuine issues of material jurisdictional facts, Waller County would still be free to assert its jurisdictional challenge based on the resolution of the disputеd fact issues. Thus we cannot infer a denial of the jurisdictional plea from the denial of the motion for summary judgment.
Waller County relies upon Thomas v. Long,
In Thomas, the record on appeal did not include an order explicitly denying a plea to the jurisdiction, but it did include a motion for summary judgment сhallenging the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Thomas,
In Lazarides, the appellant filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment asserting various jurisdictional challenges. Lazarides,
Finally, the jurisdictional challenges in Thomas and Lazarides appear to have been raised in traditional motions for summary judgment.' Although a trial court’s jurisdiction may be challenged in a traditional motion for summary judgment, the record in this case demonstrates that Waller County’s alleged jurisdictional arguments only were raised in the no-evidence portion of its motion for summary judgment. But this court has previously held that “a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be challenged in a no-evidence motion for summary judgment.” Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. Woods,
Conclusion
Because the trial court did not rule on the plea to jurisdiction (either expressly or implicitly through its denial of Waller County’s motiоn for summary judgment), we lack jurisdiction over this purported interlocutory appeal. We grant the appel-lees’ motions and dismiss the appeal for wаnt of jurisdiction. See Tex.R.App. P. 42.3(a). CALH’s request for sanctions in the event that the appeal is not dismissed before December 1, 2014 is dismissed as moot. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate immediately. See Tex.R.App. P. 18.1(c).