No. 12-0830
Click for Official Page
Oral argument was held on September 16, 2014. The Court issued an opinion resolving the case on January 9, 2015. It then denied rehearing on October 18, 2013 File Closed
Tracking 6 articles about this case.
January 14, 2015
from Southeast Texas Record
January 11, 2015
from SCOTXblog
The article also mentions:June 16, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 18 other cases.
June 11, 2014
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 8 other cases.
October 18, 2013
from SCOTXblog
This article also mentions 4 other cases.
| Appellate District: | 14th Court of Appeals |
| Outcome Below: | Aff/Pt and Rev & Ren/Pt |
| COA Docket No.: | 14-11-00751-CV |
| Opinion Author: | Honorable Charles W. Seymore |
| Trial Court: | 21st District Court |
| County: | Washington |
| Trial Judge: | Honorable Terry Flenniken |
| Trial Docket: | 34,370 |
| Date | Event | Outcome | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-05-07 | Case Stored | ||
| This case was waiting for a possible rehearing motion between February 19, 2015 and May 7, 2015. | |||
| 2015-02-19 | Mandate issued | ||
| 2015-01-09 | Opinion issued | Court of Appeals' judgment affirmed | |
| 2015-01-09 | Court approved judgment sent to attorneys of record | Issued | |
| 2015-01-09 | Miscellaneous motion disposed. See Remarks. | Filing dismissed as moot | |
| This case was awaiting the Court's decision after oral argument between September 16, 2014 and January 9, 2015. | |||
| 2014-09-16 | Oral argument | ||
| This case was waiting for oral argument between July 7, 2014 and September 16, 2014. | |||
| 2014-07-07 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2014-06-24 | Oral Argument Submission Form from Attorney received | ||
| 2014-06-13 | Case set for oral argument | Case set for oral argument | |
| 2014-06-11 | Letter Filed | ||
| 2014-06-06 | Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2014-06-06 | Petition for Review granted | ||
| This case was waiting for a possible rehearing motion between February 14, 2014 and June 6, 2014. | |||
| 2014-02-14 | Certification (various) in case received | ||
| 2014-02-14 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2014-02-14 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2014-02-12 | Surreply filed (Respondent) | ||
| 2014-02-12 | Motion for leave to file brief | ||
| 2014-01-22 | Reply Brief (Petitioner) | ||
| 2014-01-08 | Brief on the Merits (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-12-06 | Motion for Extension of Time disposed. | Filing granted | |
| 2013-12-06 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed | ||
| 2013-11-21 | Designation of Lead Counsel | ||
| 2013-11-19 | Designation of Lead Counsel | ||
| 2013-11-18 | Brief on the Merits (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-11-05 | Case Record Filed | ||
| 2013-10-21 | Record Requested in Petition for Review | ||
| 2013-10-18 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-10-18 | Previous Order of the Court withdrawn | ||
| 2013-10-18 | Petition Reinstated | ||
| 2013-10-18 | Brief on the Merits Requested | ||
| 2013-08-30 | Reply to Response to Motion for Rehearing filed (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-08-26 | Response to Motion for Rehearing (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-08-16 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2013-08-16 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Response | ||
| 2013-08-15 | Phone call from Clerk's Office | ||
| 2013-07-17 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| This case was waiting for a decision about a pending motion for rehearing between May 7, 2013 and July 17, 2013. | |||
| 2013-05-07 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2013-05-06 | Motion for Rehearing | ||
| 2013-04-19 | Petition for Review disposed | Denied | |
| 2013-03-25 | Reply to Response (Petitioner) | ||
| 2013-03-08 | Response to Petition (Respondent) | ||
| 2013-02-22 | Supreme Court of Texas Requested Response | ||
| 2013-01-22 | Case forwarded to Court | ||
| 2012-12-20 | Petition for Review (Petitioner) | ||
| 2012-11-30 | Designation of Lead Counsel | ||
| 2012-11-16 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2012-11-14 | Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed | ||
| 2012-11-14 | Designation of Lead Counsel | ||
| 2012-10-17 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review disposed | Filing granted | |
| 2012-10-15 | Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review filed |
| Party | Counsel | Role | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services |
|
Petitioner | |||||||
| Cannon, Mary |
|
Respondent |
Justice Lehrmann delivered the opinion for a unanimous court, affirming the court of appeals.
Section 101.106 of the Texas Tort Claims Act makes plaintiffs choose whether to sue the government entity or the state officials. If a plaintiff tries to have it both ways by suing both categories of defendant, “the employees shall immediately be dismissed.” Tex. Civ. Proc. & Rem. Code §101.106(e).
This petition asked the Court to clarify two situations:
Is a plaintiff barred from filing an amended petition after the State files a motion under Section 101.106(e)?
Does Section 101.106(e) also require the dismissal of claims that a plaintiff might have against state officials under federal law, such as a Section 1983 claim?
On the first, the Court held that this statute does not prevent a plaintiff from amending its petition to add a new claim. The Court distinguished its recent opinion in a health-care-liability case that a plaintiff could not dismiss its claim in an effort to avoid the penalty for not filing a timely expert report. See Op. at 10 (discussing AUSTIN STATE HOSPITAL, DR. VIKAR NUZHATH AND DR. ERIK LINDFORS v. JOEL GRAHAM, No. 10-0674 ). Here, the Court holds that the wording of the Tort Claims Act (using the word “immediately”) does not change the normal background rules of Texas procedure that would generally permit a party to amend its petition.
On the second, the Court held that Section 101.106(e) does not bar federal claims because they are not brought “under” the Tort Claims Act. See Op. at 6-7. The Court reached that result as a matter of statutory construction and so did not consider questions related to preemption or constitutionality. See Op. at 13.
