Glenn Beckendorff, in His Official Capacity as Waller County Judge, Frank Pokluda, in His Official Capacity as Waller County Precinct Two Commissioner, and Stan Kitzman, in His Official Capacity as Waller County Precinct Four Commissioner v. City of Hempstead, Texas, Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead, Pintail Landfill, LLC, and Waller County, Texas ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
14-15-00322-CV
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
HOUSTON, TEXAS
6/3/2015 11:21:22 AM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE
CLERK
NO. 14-15-00322-CV
_____________________________________________________________
FILED IN
14th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
FOR THE FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 6/3/2015 11:21:22 AM
AT HOUSTON, TEXAS CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
_____________________________________________________________
Clerk
GLENN BECKENDORFF, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
WALLER COUNTY JUDGE, et al.,
Appellants
V.
CITY OF HEMPSTEAD, TEXAS AND
CITIZENS AGAINST THE LANDFILL IN HEMPSTEAD, et. al.,
Appellees
_____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 506TH Judicial District Court of Waller County,
Texas
Honorable Terry Flenniken, Presiding
MOTION TO TRANSFER TO FIRST COURT OF APPEALS
______________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Pursuant to Local Rule 1.5, Appellees, the City of Hempstead,
Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead, and Waller County move for the
Court to transfer this case to the First Court of Appeals.
The underlying case in this appeal, Cause No. 13-03-21872, City of
Hempstead, Texas, and Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead (CALH),
v. Waller County, Texas, Waller County Judge Glenn Beckendorff, Waller
County Commissioner Frank Pokluda, Waller County Commissioner Stan
Kitzman, Waller County Commissioner Jeron Barnett, and Waller County
Commissioner John Amsler, In Their Official Capacities, in the 506th
District Court of Waller County, Texas, gave rise to two related proceedings,
as that term is defined by Local Rule 1.1(b), both of which were assigned
and determined by the First Court of Appeals. There was an interlocutory
appeal, see Exhibits A and B (Opinion and Judgment from the First Court of
Appeal in No. 01-14-00946-CV) and an original proceeding, see Exhibit C
(First Court’s order denying petition for writ of mandamus in No. 01-14-
00916-CV).
The parties therefore pray that this Court transfer the case to the First
Court of Appeals.
Respectfully submitted,
OLSON & OLSON, L.L.P.
By: /s/ Eric C. Farrar
Eric C. Farrar
State Bar No. 24036549
efarrar@olsonllp.com
Wortham Tower, Suite 600
2727 Allen Parkway
Houston, Texas 77019
Telephone: (713) 533-3800
Facsimile: (713) 533-3888
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CITY OF HEMPSTEAD
/s/ V. Blayre Pena
V. Blayre Pena
Hance Scarborough, LLP
400 W. 15th Street, Suite 950
Austin, Texas 78701
Facsimile (512) 482-6891
E-Mail: bpena@hslawmail.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
CALH
/s/ Elton R. Mathis, Jr.
Elton R. Mathis, Jr.
Waller County Criminal
District Attorney
645 12th Street
Hempstead, Texas 77445
Facsimile: (979) 826-7722
/s/ Ruhee G. Leonard
Ruhee G. Leonard
Waller County Criminal
District Attorney
645 12th Street
Hempstead, Texas 77445
Facsimile: (979) 826-7722
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
WALLER COUNTY AND ITS
ELECTED OFFICALS IN THEIR
OFFICAL CAPACITY
/s/ David A. Carp
David A. Carp
Herzog & Carp
427 Mason Park Boulevard
Katy, Texas 77450
Facsimile (713) 781-4797
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
/s/ Brent W. Ryan
Brent W. Ryan
McElroy, Sullivan, Miller,
Weber & Olmstead, L.L.P.
P.O. Box 12127
Austin, Texas 78711
Facsimile (512) 327-6566
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
PINTAIL LANDFILL, LLC
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
The parties who have not signed this motion were contacted by the
undersigned, most recently via email on the afternoon of June 2, 2015.
Counsel for appellants is not opposed. Counsel for Pintail Landfill, LLC was
contacted via email on May 22, 2015, but did not state whether Pintail was
opposed or not. Counsel for Pintail did not respond to the email on June 2,
and therefore it is not known whether Pintail opposes the transfer or not.
/s/ Eric C. Farrar
Eric C. Farrar
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 3, 2015 this Joint Motion to Transfer was
served on counsel for all parties via eservice:
David A. Carp Ms. Carol Chaney
Herzog & Carp Law Office of Carol A. Chaney
427 Mason Park Boulevard 820 13th Street
Katy, Texas 77450 P.O. Box 966
Facsimile (713) 781-4797 Hempstead, Texas 77445
dcarp@hcmlegal.com Facsimile (979) 826-6637
Attorney for Appellant E-Mail:
carol.chaney@thechaneyfirm.net
Attorneys for Citizens
Against the Landfill in Hempstead
Mr. Brent W. Ryan Ms. V. Blayre Pena
McElroy, Sullivan, Miller, Hance Scarborough, LLP
Weber & Olmstead, L.L.P. 400 W. 15th Street, Suite 950
P.O. Box 12127 Austin, Texas 78701
Austin, Texas 78711 Facsimile (512) 482-6891
Facsimile (512) 327-6566 E-Mail: bpena@hslawmail.com
E-Mail: bryan@msmtx.com Attorneys for Citizens
Attorney for Pintail Landfill, LLC Against the Landfill in Hempstead
Elton R. Mathis, Jr.
Waller County District Attorney
Ruhee G. Leonard
Assistant District Attorney
645 12th Street
Hempstead, Texas 77445
Facsimile: (979) 826-7722
E-Mail: e.mathis@wallercounty.us
Attorney for Waller County,
Texas
/s/ Eric C. Farrar
Eric C. Farrar
Opinion issued November 26, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00946-CV
———————————
WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS
AND
COUNTY JUDGE GLENN BECKENDORFF, COMMISSIONER FRANK
POKLUDA, COMMISSIONER STAN KITZMAN, COMMISSIONER
JERON BARNETT, AND COMMISSIONER JOHN AMSLER, IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS THE WALLER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COURT, Appellants
V.
CITY OF HEMPSTEAD, TEXAS
AND
CITIZENS AGAINST THE LANDFILL IN HEMPSTEAD, Appellees
On Appeal from the 506th District Court
Waller County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 13-03-21872
EXHIBIT A
OPINION
Appellants Waller County, Texas and its Commissioners Court consisting of
County Judge Glenn Beckendorff and County Commissioners Frank Pokluda, Stan
Kitzman, Jeron Barnett, and John Amsler, all acting in their official capacities
(collectively, Waller County), filed a notice of interlocutory appeal. The County
attempts to invoke our jurisdiction by asserting that the trial court denied a motion
for summary judgment on jurisdictional grounds and thereby effectively denied its
plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(8) (West.
Supp. 2014). Appellees, the City of Hempstead and Citizens Against the Landfill
in Hempstead (CALH) contest jurisdiction and have moved to dismiss the appeal.
Because the 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 the proposed creation of a landfill on a site that partially overlaps the
City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.
2
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, among other things,
that there was no evidence to support a claim that the challenged ordinance was
enacted without authority so as to invoke the district 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 expressly 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 the merits to ascertain and determine the facts, the Court
finds that judicial economy dictates proceeding with jury selection
and presentation of evidence 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 compel a pretrial
ruling on the jurisdictional plea, In re Waller Co., No. 01-14-00916-CV (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 21, 2014), and a similar petition has been filed
with the Supreme Court of Texas.
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
3
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. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.014(a)(8). Waller County asserts that it is entitled to
an interlocutory appeal and automatic stay of trial proceedings, see id. § 51.014(b)
& (c), because the denial of its motion for summary judgment, which raised
jurisdictional issues similar to those in the plea to the jurisdiction, implicitly or
effectively denied the jurisdictional plea.
The mandamus record previously filed and expressly relied upon by the
County in its attempt to demonstrate appellate 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 on 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 resolving 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 because of genuine issues of material
4
jurisdictional facts, Waller County would still be free to assert its jurisdictional
challenge based on the resolution of the disputed 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, 207 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex.
2006), and Lazarides v. Farris, 367 S.W.3d 788, 796–97 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.), for the proposition that an order denying a motion for
summary judgment in which the movant challenges the trial court’s jurisdiction is
eligible for an interlocutory appeal. We find both cases to be distinguishable.
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
challenging the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Thomas, 207 S.W.3d at
338–39. The Supreme Court held that Section 51.014(a)(8) provided for an
interlocutory appeal when a trial court denies a governmental unit’s challenge to
subject matter jurisdiction, irrespective of the procedural vehicle used. Id. at 339.
Although the trial court did not explicitly deny the relief sought in the defendant’s
motion for summary judgment challenging the trial court’s jurisdiction, it did
affirmatively grant relief to the plaintiff on claims that were subject to those
jurisdictional challenges. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded that “the trial
court’s rulings on the merits of some claims for which [defendant] argued the trial
5
court lacked subject matter jurisdiction constitute an implicit rejection of
[defendant’s] jurisdictional challenges.” Id. Unlike Thomas, there has been no
ruling by the trial court in this case on the merits of the appellees’ claims from
which it could be implied that Waller County’s jurisdictional arguments had been
rejected.
In Lazarides, the appellant filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for
summary judgment asserting various jurisdictional challenges. Lazarides, 367
S.W.3d at 795. Although the trial court did not expressly grant or deny the
appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction, it denied the summary judgment motion. Id. at
796. Following Thomas, the Fourteenth Court held that “[w]hen the record does
not contain an order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction, but does include
an order denying a motion for summary judgment in which the movant challenged
the trial court’s jurisdiction, an interlocutory appeal may be taken under
subsection (a)(8) irrespective of the selected procedural vehicle.” Id. at 797–98
(citing Thomas, 207 S.W.3d at 339). Unlike Lazarides, the trial court in this case
explicitly stated, and the record confirms, that the denial of the County’s motion
for summary judgment did not imply an adverse ruling on the jurisdictional issues.
Instead, the issues remain before the trial court pending resolution of the disputed
jurisdictional facts.
6
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, 388 S.W.3d 785, 794 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.); accord Thornton v. Northeast Harris
County MUD 1, No. 14-13-00890-CV, 2014 WL 3672897, at *11 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] July 24, 2014, pet. filed). Accordingly, no denial of a
jurisdictional plea can be inferred from the denial of a no-evidence summary
judgment argued on jurisdictional grounds.
Conclusion
Because the trial court did not rule on the plea to jurisdiction (either
expressly or implicitly through its denial of Waller County’s motion for summary
judgment), we lack jurisdiction over this purported interlocutory appeal. We grant
the appellees’ motions and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 42.3(a). CALH’s request for sanctions in the event that the appeal is not
7
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).
Michael Massengale
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Brown.
8
JUDGMENT
Court of Appeals
First District of Texas
NO. 01-14-00946-CV
WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS
AND
COUNTY JUDGE GLENN BECKENDORFF, COMMISSIONER FRANK POKLUDA,
COMMISSIONER STAN KITZMAN, COMMISSIONER JERON BARNETT, AND
COMMISSIONER JOHN AMSLER, IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS THE
WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, Appellants
V.
CITY OF HEMPSTEAD, TEXAS
AND
CITIZENS AGAINST THE LANDFILL IN HEMPSTEAD, Appellees
Appeal from the 506th District Court of Waller County (Tr. Ct. No. 13-03-21872)
After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that it
has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and
ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.
The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.
Judgment rendered November 26, 2014.
Judgment rendered by panel consisting of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Brown.
EXHIBIT B
Opinion issued November 21, 2014
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00916-CV
———————————
IN RE WALLER COUNTY, TEXAS, WALLER JUDGE GLENN
BECKENDORFF, WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER FRANK
POKLUDA, WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER STAN KITZMAN,
WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER JERON BARNETT, AND
WALLER COUNTY COMMISSIONER JOHN AMSLER, IN THEIR
OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS THE WALLER COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COURT, Relators
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
EXHIBIT C
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.* We dismiss all pending
motions, including relators’ emergency motion for stay, as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Brown.
*
The underlying case is City of Hempstead, Texas and Citizens Against the Landfill
in Hempstead v. Waller County, Texas, County Judge Glenn Beckendorff,
Commissioner Frank Pokluda, Commissioner Stan Kitzman, Commissioner Jeron
Barnett, Commissioner John Amsler, and Pintail Landfill, L.L.C., cause number
13-03-21872, pending in the 506th District Court of Waller County, Texas, the
Hon. Terrill L. Flenniken presiding.
2