County of El Paso v. Leticia Napoles ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                    COURT OF APPEALS
    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    EL PASO, TEXAS
    '
    COUNTY OF EL PASO,                                              No. 08-12-00005-CV
    '
    Appellant,                           Appeal from the
    '
    v.                                                           County Court at Law No. 3
    '
    of El Paso County, Texas
    '
    LETICIA NAPOLES,
    '                 (TC# 2008-3811)
    Appellee.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on Appellee=s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
    The motion will be granted for the reasons stated below.
    Procedural Background
    Appellee Leticia Napoles sued the County of El Paso alleging whistleblower and sex
    discrimination and retaliation claims. The County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which was
    denied on September 4, 2009. In September 2011, the County filed a second plea to the
    jurisdiction regarding the whistleblower claim, combined with a motion for summary judgment as
    to all of the claims. After conducting a hearing, the trial court orally denied this motion on
    January 6, 2012. The County filed a notice of appeal that day. The court signed a written order
    on January 19, 2012.
    In this Court, the County filed a motion to stay the trial court proceedings and Napoles filed
    a motion to dismiss. The County has not responded to the motion to dismiss.
    Discussion
    A governmental unit, such as the County, may bring an interlocutory appeal from an order
    denying a plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE ANN. '
    51.014(a)(8)(West Supp. 2011). However, the County cannot appeal from the denial of a motion
    to reconsider a plea to the jurisdiction. See CTL/Thompson Texas, LLC v. Morrison Homes, 
    337 S.W.3d 437
    , 443 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied). Napoles argues that the County=s
    second plea to the jurisdiction was, in effect, a motion for reconsideration. She relies principally
    on Denton County v. Huther, 
    43 S.W.3d 665
    (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 2001, no pet.).
    In Huther, the defendants filed a motion to reconsider and Arenewed plea to the
    jurisdiction@ after their first plea was denied. 
    See 43 S.W.3d at 666
    . The appellate court noted
    that the first and second pleas raised the same grounds, but the second plea cited additional
    authority. See 
    id. at 667.
    The court held, AThe mere fact that the motion cites additional
    authority in support of Appellants= plea to the jurisdiction that was not included in the plea to the
    jurisdiction when it was first presented to the trial court, did not transform the motion into a
    second, separate and distinct plea to the jurisdiction.@ 
    Id. Therefore, the
    order denying the
    second plea was not an appealable interlocutory order. Id.; accord City of Houston v. Estate of
    Jones, 
    321 S.W.3d 668
    , 670-71 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, pet. filed); Tex. Dep=t of
    Criminal Justice v. Avellaneda, No. 11-05-00414-CV, 
    2006 WL 1172253
    , at *2
    (Tex.App.--Eastland May 4, 2006, no pet.)(mem. op.).
    In this case, the first plea to the jurisdiction asserted that Napoles cannot satisfy three of the
    elements of a whistleblower claim. The second plea attacks the same three elements, but cites
    additional authority and evidence. Although the County did not respond to the motion to dismiss,
    it asserts in its motion to stay that Napoles= January 18, 2011 deposition revealed a fundamental
    failing as to one of the whistleblower elements. But the County also states that Napoles=
    2
    testimony in this regard is consistent with the facts stated in the grievance she filed with the civil
    service commission. The grievance was available to the County when it filed its first plea to the
    jurisdiction. In this situation, the additional evidence does not make the second plea substantively
    different from the first one. See Moorhead v. East Chambers Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
    01-03-01234-CV, 
    2004 WL 1470787
    , at *3-4 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] July 1, 2004, pet.
    denied)(mem. op.).
    Because the second plea to the jurisdiction raises the same grounds as the first plea, we
    agree with Napoles that the order denying the second plea is not an appealable order.
    This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The County=s motion to stay is denied as
    moot.
    February 8, 2012
    CHRISTOPHER ANTCLIFF, Justice
    Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-12-00005-CV

Filed Date: 2/8/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015