Buy This Entire Record For
San Jacinto River Authority v. Beasley
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District
July 9, 2019
SAN JACINTO RIVER AUTHORITY, Appellant
ROBERT L. BEASLEY, KIMBERLY S. BEASLEY, NICHOLAS L. BRADEN, PEGGY J. GLAZE, SHANNON E. CRAWFORD, RONALD CHARLES CROSSMAN, HALENE CROSSMAN, CLIFTON B. CURRIN, JR., DEBORAH H. CURRIN, KENNETH B. DOMINIQUE, MARY J. DOMINIQUE, RICHARD M. ENGEL, BRENDA ENGEL, ANDREW W. FERGUSON, MARION A. FERGUSON, JOE S. GAZZANA, JULIE A. GAZZANA, STEPHEN L. GOODWIN, DIANE F. GOODWIN, JOYCE S. GOULD, BRIAN E. GROOM, BEVERLY A. GROOM, ELPIDA RECHELLE GRYPARIS, JOHN O. HEARD, KATHRYN HEARD, CARL R. HOPPES, CARMELITA HOPPES, RICHARD B. HUGHEY, KAREN N. HUGHEY, SANDRA INGRAM, REBECCA W. JOHANSEN, GRANT JAMES THOMPSON KEILLOR, ALISON MARGARET KEILLOR, MARY LYNN KOENIG, JOHN J. LAVEZZARI, GAIL LAVEZZARI, NEIL LEUCK, JILL TISCHBEIN, RAYMOND LITTLE, HOLLY LITTLE, LOUISE T. MANN, JULIA ANN PAUL, JOHN F. PEARCE, LINDA C. PEARCE, KLAUS M. PISTORIUS, SUSAN PISTORIUS, MATTHEW PRUCHA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE PRUCHA LIVING TRUST UTD SEPTEMBER 16, 2005, DEBORAH PRUCHA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-TRUSTEE OF THE PRUCHA LIVING TRUST UTD SEPTEMBER 16, 2005, HUBERT ROBERTS, STACY RONEY, AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF NANCY PARRIGIN, DECEASED, CHARLES W. SANDFORD, KAREN SANDFORD, DAVID SPARKS, JENNIFER SPARKS, JAMES STEVEN THOMAS, JUNE CAROL THOMAS, DARREL D. TICKNER, DEANITA TICKNER, ANDREW T. TIMURA, MARY P. TIMURA, FRANTISEK UNCAJTYK, ROBERT C. YOUNG AND SHERYL L. YOUNG, Appellees
Appeal from the 127th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2018-11149.
consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and
inverse-condemnation suit the San Jacinto River Authority
(SJRA) brings an interlocutory appeal complaining of the
trial court's "effective" denial of its motion
filed pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. We
dismiss the interlocutory appeal.
filed suit against SJRA alleging that actions taken by SJRA
in the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Harvey amounted to a
taking of their property. In response, on April 4, 2018, SJRA
filed a "Motion to Dismiss Based under Rule 91a."
In its motion SJRA alleged that appellees'
inverse-condemnation and easement claims had no basis in law
or in fact and should be dismissed. The trial court did not
rule on SJRA's Rule 91a motion to dismiss. Rule 91a.3
imposes a duty on the trial court to grant or deny a Rule 91a
motion within forty-five days after the motion is filed.
Tex.R.Civ.P. 91a.3(c). The forty-five day period expired May
21, 2018, SJRA filed a notice of interlocutory appeal of the
trial court's "May 19, 2018 denial" of its Rule
91a motion. In a footnote to its notice of appeal SJRA noted
that, "The Court's failure to rule on
Defendant's motion within forty-five days is effectively
a denial of Defendant's motion to dismiss[.]"
28, 2018, notification was transmitted to the parties of this
court's intention to dismiss the appeal for want of
jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response on or before
July 9, 2018, demonstrating grounds for continuing the
appeal.. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).
courts have jurisdiction over immediate appeals from
interlocutory orders only if expressly provided by statute.
Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352- 53 (Tex.
1998). Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code provides for an interlocutory appeal from an
order granting or denying a plea to the jurisdiction by a
governmental unit. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 51.014(a)(8). Because SJRA's Rule 91a motion
challenged the trial court's jurisdiction over the claims
asserted, section 51.014(a)(8) affords SJRA a right to an
interlocutory appeal of the trial court's denial of the
motion. See City of Austin v. Liberty Mut. Ins., 431
S.W.3d 817, 822 (Tex. App.-Austin 2014, no pet.). In this
case, however, and as the record currently stands, the trial
court has not denied the motion.
response to this court's notice, SJRA argues that by
failing to rule on SJRA's Rule 91a motion within
forty-five days the trial court "effectively"
denied the motion. We considered and rejected this argument
in San Jacinto River Auth. v. Lewis, 572 S.W.3d 838,
839-40 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.).
Because the trial court has not ruled on SJRA's plea to
the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss under Rule 91a, no
ruling exists over which this court may exercise its
interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. Id.
conclude there exists no appealable order for this court to
review under section 51.014(a)(8) of the Texas ...