Opinion
No. 05-04-01305-CV
Opinion Filed June 7, 2005.
On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 02-2186-A.
Affirm.
Before Justices O'NEILL, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellants appeal a plea to the jurisdiction granted in favor of appellees. In one issue, appellants contend the trial court erred in holding that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellants contend that the facts and law of this case clearly demonstrate that the city of Dallas intervened in this action, requested affirmative relief, and thereby waived its claim of immunity from suit. However, sovereign immunity is only one basis the trial court could have relied on to grant appellees challenge of jurisdiction. Appellees also argued that 1) appellants do not have standing because they have not alleged the deprivation of a vested property right, 2) appellants' claim is not ripe because it is based on contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, and 3) the trial court has no jurisdiction under the doctrine of separation of powers. Appellants have provided no relevant statutes or case law, nor reference to the record, to support their argument regarding ripeness of the issue or separation of powers. Accordingly, these arguments are waived. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(h). Appellants provided no argument whatsover with respect to appellants' standing; that argument is also waived. See Tex.R.App.P. 38.1(e).
Appellants were entitled to present argument on all grounds upon which they contend the trial court's judgment was improper. See Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970). However, they have not done so. Their failure to take advantage of the opportunity to present argument on standing, ripeness of the issue, and separation of powers results in waiver. See Morriss v. Enron Oil Gas Co., 948 S.W.2d 858, 871 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ) . Because appellees' plea to the jurisdiction may have been granted, properly or improperly, on a ground not challenged by appellant, we must affirm the judgment. See Holloway v. Starnes, 840 S.W.2d 14, 23 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, writ denied) . We overrule appellants' single point of error.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.