From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nueces Cnty. v. Sundial Owner's Ass'n, Inc.

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 5, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00074-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2018)

Opinion

NUMBER 13-18-00074-CV

02-05-2018

NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, NUECES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, DEL MAR PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT, CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, AND PORT ARANSAS I. S. D., Appellants, v. SUNDIAL OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee.


On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Contreras and Benavides
Order Per Curiam

On February 2, 2018, this Court granted a stay of all trial court proceedings as requested in an emergency motion filed by appellants Nueces County, Texas, Nueces County Hospital District, Del Mar Public Junior College District, City of Corpus Christi, and Port Aransas Independent School District. Appellee Sundial Owner's Association, Inc. has filed a response to the motion and a supplemental response requesting that we lift the stay. Because the statutory automatic stay does not apply, we will lift our stay.

A governmental unit may appeal an interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(8) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). Such an appeal automatically stays all trial court proceedings if the plea to the jurisdiction was filed not later than the later of:

(1) a date set by the trial court in a scheduling order entered under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; or

(2) the 180th day after the date the defendant files:

(A) the original answer;

(B) the first other responsive pleading to the plaintiff's petition; or

(C) if the plaintiff files an amended pleading that alleges a new cause of action against the defendant and the defendant is able to raise a defense to the new cause of action under Subsection (a)(5), (7), or (8) [immunity, special appearance, or plea to the jurisdiction], the responsive pleading that raises that defense.
Id. § 51.014(b), (c).

According to records attached to appellee's response and supplemental response, appellee filed suit on February 5, 2016 and appellants filed answers between March 1 and March 7, 2016. In June 2017, appellants filed summary judgment motions arguing in part that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Texas Tax Code 31.11 does not clearly and unambiguously waive governmental immunity from suit. The summary judgment motions were denied in June and July 2017, but no appeal was taken from these orders. The plea to the jurisdiction which is the subject of this appeal raises several grounds, including the grounds already raised in the previous motions. Appellants filed the plea on January 19, 2018 and it was denied by the trial court's order of January 29, 2018. Trial has been set for Monday, February 5, 2018, exactly two years after suit was filed.

This appeal does not trigger the automatic stay under civil practice and remedies code section 51.014 because appellants' plea to the jurisdiction was filed on January 19, 2018, more than 180 days after their answers were filed. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(b), (c). The Legislature has determined that, when a government defendant appeals the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction that was filed more than six months after the defendant filed its answer, there is no automatic stay of trial proceedings. See id. § 51.014(c). Though we have discretion to make any appropriate order that the law and the nature of the case require, TEX. R. APP. P. 43.6, appellants have provided no reason to extend the scope of the automatic stay to late-filed pleas, nor have they demonstrated any emergency warranting postponement of trial.

Though appellee filed amended petitions, there is no indication that those amended petitions raised any new causes of action that would be subject to appellants' jurisdictional challenge. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d)(2)(C) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).

Considering appellants' emergency motion, appellee's response, and the record provided by appellee, this Court is of the opinion that the stay was improvidently granted and should be lifted. Therefore, we hereby LIFT the stay previously imposed in the underlying suit. The appeal remains on this Court's docket and will be governed by the timetables for accelerated appeals as provided by rule. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 5th day of February, 2018.


Summaries of

Nueces Cnty. v. Sundial Owner's Ass'n, Inc.

COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
Feb 5, 2018
NUMBER 13-18-00074-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2018)
Case details for

Nueces Cnty. v. Sundial Owner's Ass'n, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, NUECES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, DEL MAR PUBLIC…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

Date published: Feb 5, 2018

Citations

NUMBER 13-18-00074-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 5, 2018)