Indeed, in listing those terms and conditionsthe rights, benefits, and responsibilities to which same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, must have access, was no accident. Id. Governmental Immunity Bars Appellants' Claims and Injunctive Relief Against the City, a. Ultra vires Claims Prohibited against the City. VI, 7a, the Mayor of the City of Houston has the authority to enforce laws and ordinances and to prescribe rules governing each department necessary or expedient for the general conduct of the administrative department. Further, appellants do not plead or dispute that Mayor Parker's decision to interpret extrinsic law as requiring the City to continue to provide spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees on an equal basis falls within Mayor Parker's discretion under the Houston City Charter. Mayor Parker's discretionary act, made on advice of the city attorney, was not legislative, and thus does not represent a municipal ordinance or franchise, nor a statute, and, thus, is not subject to Section 37.006(b). e. Appellants have not Pleaded and Cannot Establish that Either Mayor Parker or Mayor's Turner's Continuation of the Directive to Provide Spousal Employment Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses of City Employees is Without Legal Authority. 2675 (placing same-sex couples in a second-tier marriage without federal benefits demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects). The Criminal Courts consist of the District Courts, which hear felony cases, and the County Criminal Courts at Law, which hear Class A and B misdemeanor cases and cases appealed from the Justice of the Peace and Municipal Courts. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. Through a series of opinions following Windsor,15 the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require States to grant same-sex married couples the same legal rights, benefit, and responsibilities as different-sex married couples. Suits Challenging the Validity of a Statute. Appellants also seek declaratory relief against both Mayor Turner and the City. receive an alert that the document was not accepted along with the reason why. 2014); Curry, 434 S.W.3d at 820. County assumes no liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly for pick-up from our office so that the attorney can present it to the Judge. 2015). 2020). Appellants' issues on appeal are overruled. App.Houston [14th Dist.] The Arkansas Supreme Court held that Obergefell did not apply, but the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and summarily reversed. On 02/15/2018 TORRES, AIDHEE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against CITY OF HOUSTON. 2. of the majority opinion1 or in section IV.C. See Windsor v. United States, 699 F.3d 169, 17879 (2d Cir. Although appellants argue that we should apply these decisions retroactively, we decline to do so because appellants' contention is inconsistent with our requirement under the law to apply U.S. Supreme Court precedent to cases pending on appeal. To e-file through the State of Texas electronic portal EFileTexas.gov, you must first select an electronic filing service The City of South Houston Courts accepts payments in: money order, cashier checks, debit card, credit card (Visa and MasterCard), NO personal checks. The above analysis alone suffices to explain why the trial court's jurisdictional dismissal based on governmental immunity should be affirmed. The Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction that forbids the Mayor to spend public funds in violation of section 6.204( c)(2), VII. at 243. See Chambers-Liberty Cntys. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision. Skip to main content. Specifically, appellants sought to enjoin the mayor and the city to comply with section 6.204(c)(2) of the Texas Family Code.. See Harper v. Va. Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 9697, 113 S.Ct. The following is for information purposes only. The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. Case Summary. If a court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over claims, the court cannot rule on the merits of the claims and must dismiss the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or, if possible, the court may transfer the claims to a court that has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. Prac. However, once a state decides to grant certain benefits as an incident of marriage, it must grant that benefit to all married couples, regardless of sex. In addition to being the EFM, EFileTexas.gov is also one of the certified EFSPs. 401 East Houston Avenue. Court: Fifth Circuit Texas US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Prior to the remand, however, the state court gave notice to appellants that a motion to retain was required to keep the case on its docket. App.Houston [14th Dist.] who have not attained the age of majority. No Personal Checks will be accepted through the mail. Their demand for a claw back remedy was, therefore, properly dismissed. 14-18-00340-CV, 2020 WL 1528047, at *4 (Tex. f. No Basis To Eliminate Spousal Benefits for all City Employees. Information about fine only misdemeanor cases pending in the Harris County Justice Courts may be found by using the "Find Information about Cases and Dockets", "Find My Case and Court Date" on the Courts' Website at www.jp.hctx.net. This case is not final and, as such, we follow the Supreme Court's holdings in Obergefell, Pavan, and Bostock in reaching our decision. at 624-25. Disclaimer: The law is constantly changing and there may 2017). (mem. Public Datasets Sess. Appellants further contend the City is not immune under the second circumstance because it is a necessary party under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (the UDJA). App.Houston [14th Dist.] orders and the emancipation of minors. If the document is accepted for filing by the County Clerk, the filer will receive a confirmation page that the document has been accepted. Andrade v. Venable, 372 S.W.3d 134, 136 (Tex. A temporary injunction's purpose is to preserve the status quo of the litigation's subject matter pending a trial on the merits. C.Appellants Failed to Establish Standing to Order the City and Mayor to Claw Back Any Public Funds Spent in the Past. Sch. As Heinrich made clear, immunity for an ultra vires act is only a waiver with regard to bringing future acts into compliance with the law. City of Galveston v. CDM Smith, Inc., 470 S.W.3d 558, 569 (Tex. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex. 2015, pet. Appellants' claims, therefore, do not fall into the ultra vires exception to governmental immunity. Appellants fail to plead and prove that Mayor Parker acted outside of her legal authority. Click on a week day below to view that particular docket. This Official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which [the official] is an agent. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 16566, 105 S.Ct. Case Details Parties Documents Dockets. Occupational License during the period of suspension in the State of Texas. HALL. As clerks, they have the responsibility of: Filing, docketing and assessing the costs associated with each case. While the Pidgeon Parties allege that the Freeman suit was collusive, there was no question but the injunction was in effect and had not been invalidated by any court. 2001); see also Town of Flower Mound v. Sanford, No. Our intermediate courts of appeals have repeatedly stated that it is not an ultra vires act for an official or agency to make an erroneous decision while staying within its authority As important as a mistake may be, sovereign immunity comes with a price; it often allows the improvident actions of the government to go unredressed. In order to better protect court documents, we now require you to have a registered login with our site. See McRaven, 508 S.W.3d at 243. Original music by Marion Lozano and . A cause of action to recover public funds improperly or illegally spent belongs exclusively to the governmental entity that spent them. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit noted that both sides now agree that the injunction appealed from is correct in light of Obergefell. Id. Please note, the District Clerks Office will no longer accept Cash Bond Assignments, in compliance with the Office of Attorney General Opinion #GA-0773. 2006) (quoting Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. Tex. The Court Finder - Houston Municipal Court Because appellants seek only to enforce existing law, this exception to governmental immunity is not available. Click on in the below citations/notices to view more details. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. On August 21, 2018, Mayor Turner and the City filed a First Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition and Application for Temporary Injunction, including affirmative defenses of lack of jurisdiction for declaratory relief; lack of subject matter jurisdiction; no standing to bring claims; failure to join necessary parties, enforcement is preempted by federal law and the U.S. Constitution; no entitlement to claw back money paid; no entitlement to attorney's fees; and the requested relief would be unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses and violate state and federal laws. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 844 (Tex. Private parties cannot circumvent governmental immunity by characterizing a suit for money damages as a claim for declaratory relief. Rules and guidelines on how to handle any of your court business, including instructions on how to reset and pay for your case (s), as well as downloadable forms, are available at no charge on our website. This is a final order. Tex. Initially, on September 2, 2016, the Texas Supreme Court denied review. The Mayor and the City (collectively, the City Parties) asserted in Defendant's Plea to the Jurisdiction and/or Counter-Motion For Summary Judgment (the Hybrid Motion) that (1) the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over all of the Pidgeon Parties' claims because the City Parties enjoy immunity from suit under the doctrine of governmental immunity; (2) the trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Pidgeon Parties' claw back claim because the Pidgeon Parties do not have standing to seek claw back of public funds already spent; (3) as a matter of law the Pidgeon Parties are not entitled to any declaratory relief or attorney's fees; and (4) as a matter of law the Pidgeon Parties are not entitled to any injunctive relief. Show entries. 2012, no pet.) In their live petition, the Pidgeon Parties alleged two claims: (1) the Pidgeon Parties brought suit as taxpayers to enjoin the Mayor's alleged ultra vires expenditures of public funds, and to secure an injunction that requires city officials to claw back public funds that were spent in violation of section 6.204(c)(2) of the Texas Family Code; article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution; and article II, section 22 of the City of Houston charter; and (2) the Pidgeon Parties brought suit under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act, asking the trial court to declare that the Mayor Annise Parker's directive of November 19, 2013 violated state law, and to declare further that the mayor and city officials have no authority to disregard state law merely because it conflicts with their personal beliefs of what the United States Constitution or federal law requires. The Judge overseeing this case is MIKE ENGELHART. In addition, after correctly concluding that the plaintiffs have not shown that the trial court erred in dismissing all claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the majority proceeds to address the merits of the plaintiffs' claims, over which this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
