(trial court did not err in denying city's plea to the jurisdiction "[b]ecause a portion of the claim . . . is under [its] jurisdiction."); City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 341 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (trial court did not err in denying plea to the jurisdiction where city had exclusive jurisdiction over some of the potential claims); see also In re Contractor's Supplies, Inc., No. 12-09-00231-CV, 2009 WL 2488374, at *3 (Tex. App.-Tyler Aug. 17, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing City of Willow Park, 166 S.W.3d at 341).
SeeCity of Houston v. U.S. Filter Wastewater Grp., Inc. , 190 S.W.3d 242, 245 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (trial court did not err in denying city's plea to the jurisdiction "[b]ecause a portion of the claim ... is under [its] jurisdiction."); City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P. , 166 S.W.3d 336, 341 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (trial court did not err in denying plea to the jurisdiction where city had exclusive jurisdiction over some of the potential claims); see alsoIn re Contractor's Supplies, Inc. , No. 12-09-00231-CV, 2009 WL 2488374, at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 17, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing City of Willow Park , 166 S.W.3d at 341 ). In Vestal v. Pistikopoulos , the Waco Court of Appeals addressed circumstances similar to the ones present here.
We examine the claims in the pleadings, taking as true the facts pleaded, and determine whether those facts support jurisdiction in the trial court. City of Houston v. U.S. Filter Wastewater Grp., Inc., 190 S.W.3d 242, 244 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); see also City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 339 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). We also take as true all evidence favorable to the petitioner in evaluating the jurisdictional issue.
"A reasonable interpretation of `proper court' is a court with jurisdiction over the underlying dispute." City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). In determining whether a court is "proper" where no suit is yet anticipated, as here, we look to the reasons stated by the petitioner for desiring to obtain the testimony.
Therefore, in determining jurisdiction, we look to the substantive law respecting the anticipated suit. See Wolfe, 341 S.W.3d at 933; City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 340–41(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (trial court had jurisdiction over plaintiff's rule 202 petition to investigate billing dispute and validity of lien filed by city against plaintiff's property, where city conceded trial court would have jurisdiction over any trespass to try title suit arising from its lien); cf. In re Jorden, 249 S.W.3d 416, 420–22 (Tex.2008) (because Texas statute limits discovery in health-care lawsuits until after plaintiff serves expert report, pre-suit depositions under rule 202 are prohibited until after expert report is served).
As such, a petition for presuit deposition does not request final or even preliminary adjudication of the petitioner's claims. SeeCity of Willow Park v.Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 341 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 202.2. Consequently, a petition for presuit deposition does not interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative agency.
District courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to determine title to real property. City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).
And to the extent that governmental immunity would bar any of the Williamses' other potential claims, a trial court in a Rule 202 proceeding may properly deny a jurisdictional plea if it has subject-matter jurisdiction over some claims but not others. See, e.g., Tcholakian, 2012 WL 4465349, at *4-5; U.S. Filter Wastewater Grp., 190 S.W.3d at 245; City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 340-41 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). We thus overrule AISD and the District Employees' second issue.
District courts generally have exclusive jurisdiction to determine title to real property. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 26.043; Chambers v. Pruitt, 241 S.W.3d 679, 684 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.). However, jurisdiction over a forcible-detainer action is given to a justice court in the precinct where the property is located.
rts of appeals appear to disagree whether an unmet exhaustion-of-remedies requirement for a potential claim precludes a trial court from authorizing depositions to investigate the potential claim in a Rule 202 proceeding. CompareIn re Bailey–Newell , 439 S.W.3d 428, 432 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding) (directing trial court to vacate order authorizing Rule 202 depositions because such depositions would circumvent statutorily required administrative procedures outlined in the Texas Labor Code), withIn re Contractor's Supplies, Inc. , No. 12-09-00231-CV, 2009 WL 2488374, at *3 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 17, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (holding the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine did not preclude Rule 202 depositions in a worker's compensation case because a Rule 202 petition "does not request final or even preliminary adjudication of the petitioner's claims" and therefore does not interfere with the exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative agency), andCity of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P. , 166 S.W.3d 336, 341 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (holding the primary jurisdiction doctrine did not preclude Rule 202 depositions regarding a potential claim over municipal water service because a Rule 202 petition does not seek final or even preliminary adjudication but only seeks an investigation of potential claims). While the Texas Supreme Court has not directly addressed this question, its recent pronouncements concerning subject matter jurisdiction in Rule 202 cases (post Contractor's Supplies and City of Willow Park ) would likely provide guidance on this issue were we to reach it.