Plea to the Jurisdiction in Texas

What Is a Plea to the Jurisdiction?

Background

A plea to the jurisdiction seeks to dismiss a case based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a plaintiff’s lack of standing. (Texas Ass’n of Business v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443-444 (Tex. 1993); Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554; Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Jones, 8 S.W.3d 636, 638; Harris County v. Progressive Nat. Bank, 93 S.W.3d 381, 383; In re Brilliant, 86 S.W.3d 680, 683; City of Cleburne v. Trussell, 10 S.W.3d 407, 410.) A plea to the jurisdiction contests the trial court’s power to determine the subject matter of the controversy. (Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).)

The plea may be based on a defect that appears on the face of a plaintiff’s petition. (Bybee v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 331 S.W.2d 910, 917 (Tex. 1960); Hawkins v. Anderson, 672 S.W.2d 293, 296.) The plea can also be used to allege that the plaintiff intentionally fabricated jurisdictional allegations in order to confer subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant. (Booth v. Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n, 132 Tex. 237, 123 S.W.2d 322, 327 (1938).) However, a defendant may not assert a plea to the jurisdiction simply to allege plaintiff has falsely stated a claim because that is a matter that needs defense on the merits. (Bernard Hanyard Enterprises v. McBeath, 663 S.W.2d 639, 642-643.)

Sovereign immunity in a suit will defeat subject matter jurisdiction and should be properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. (Mission Indep. School Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 636 (Tex. 2012); Texas Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225–226 (Tex. 2004); Snelling v. Mims, 97 S.W.3d 646, 649.) Sovereign immunity prevents suits against government entities unless there is an explicit constitutional waiver of immunity. (Wichita Falls State Hosp. v. Taylor, 106 S.W.3d 692, 696 (Tex. 2003); Dallas County MHMR v. Bossley, 968 S.W.2d 339, 341 (Tex. 1998).)

How to Structure the Motion

A plea to the jurisdiction may be included in the defendant’s original answer or in a separate instrument. (Tex. R. Civ. P. 85.) However, failure to include a plea to the jurisdiction in the original answer does not constitute a waiver. (Tex. Ass’n of Business v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993).) A plea to the jurisdiction may also be waived for the first time after judgment and on appeal. (Id.)

The plaintiff has the burden of showing facts that show the trial court has subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants. (County of Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002); Texas A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 839–840 (Tex. 2007).) However, if the plaintiff fails to allege facts that establish jurisdiction and the petition does not demonstrate incurable defects, the plaintiff may have the opportunity to amend. (Id.) If the pleadings negates the existence of subject matter jurisdiction then the plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without allowing the plaintiff the opportunity to amend. (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

Whether a determination of subject matter jurisdiction is made during a preliminary hearing or after hearing merits on the case is left to the discretion of the trial court. (Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000).)

When a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction is challenged based on the merits of the plaintiffs’ cause of action and the plea to the jurisdiction includes evidence, the trial court will review the evidence to determine if a fact issue exists. (Suarez v. City of Texas City, 465 S.W.3d 623, 632–633 (Tex. 2015); Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 227–228 (Tex. 2004).) If so, the trial court cannot grant the plea to the jurisdiction, and the issue will be resolved by the fact finder. (Id.) If the relevant evidence is undisputed the trial court will rule on the plea to the jurisdiction as a matter of law. (Id.)

On appeal, the appellate courts will review the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction ruling de novo (Suarez v. City of Texas City, 465 S.W.3d 623, 632 (Tex. 2015); Texas Dep’t of Parks and Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004).)