The Architectur e P rac tice Act is codified in chapter 1051 of the Texas Occ upations Code. 1 See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 1051.001- .701 (West 2004 & Supp. 2008). 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 288 -CV

Te xa s So c ie tyof P r ofe ssi ona l Eng ine e r s , A ppe lla nt
v. Te xa s Bo ar d of A r c hit e c tu r al E xa m ine r s a nd Cathy Hendricks, Executive Dire ctor , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 419TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-07- 0018 43 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
The Te x as Society

of Profe ssional E ng ineer s appea ls f rom the trial court’s g rant of the plea to th e j urisdiction filed by the Texas Boa

rd of Ar chitectur al Examiners (TB AE) a nd Ex ecutive D irec tor Cathy Hendr icks. Be cause we c onclude ther e wa s no err or in the trial cour t’s order g rantingthe plea to the jur isdiction, we aff irm the order
. BACK GR OUND The Society

filed suit ag a in s t the TBA E and its executive direc tor seekingdecla ratory
and inj un c tiv e re lie f t

hat w ou ld p re c lud e the TB AE fr om i nit iatin g e nf or c e me nt p ro c e e din g s a g a ins t lic e ns e d e ng ine e rs fo r a lle g e d v iol a tio ns of the Ar c hit e c tur e Pr a c tic e Ac t. B y its su it, the Soc ie ty 1Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 37.001-.011 (West 2008). 2 Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.038 (West 2000). 3 2 soug ht declar ations u n d er the Uniform De clar atory J udg ments Act, Texas Civil P rac tice and Remedies C o d e, sections 37.001 throug h 37.011, and the Administrative Proc edure Act (A PA), 2 Texas Governme nt Code, section 2001.038, that: 3

! “compr ehe n s iv e b uilding desig n” is within the scope of eng ineer ing, or , in the a lte rn a tiv e , n ot pe r seo u t s i d e t h e s co p e o f e n gi n ee ri n g;
! e ng ine e rs are e xemp t f ro m th e Ar c hit e c tur e Pr a c tic e Ac t;
! the TB AE la c ks jur isd ic tio n o ve r e ng ine e rs ;
! the Texas Boa

rd of Profe ssional Eng ineer s (TB PE) has exclusive orig inal or, in the alternative, primary jurisdiction ove r the regulation of eng ineer s; and
! TBA E Rules 1.210- .217 and unpublished rules “Ar chitect or Eng ineer : Who prepa res the pla

ns? ” do not apply

to eng ineer s, or, in the alter native, ar e inv a lid on su bs tanti ve and

/or pr oc e dura l g ro un ds
. I n addition to these dec larations, the Society soug ht injunctive relief:

! enjoining the TBA E from bring ing a n action ag ainst a li ce n s ed eng ineer wi thout f

irst submitting a complaint to the TBPE and rec ei v i n g a deter mination that the alleg ed ac tion is either not within the scope of prac tice of an e ng ineer or i s outside the educ ation, training , and other qualifications of that par

ticular e ng ineer ;
! enjoining the TBA E from bring ing actions ag ainst a license d eng ineer based on an alleg ation that the en gineer eng ag ed in “c omprehe nsive building desig n”; and/or
! enjoining the TBA E from attempting to presc ribe the e ducation, tra ining, a nd other qua lifications nece ssary for a n eng ineer

to eng ag e in building de sign.3 The TB AE filed a

plea to the jurisdiction ar g uing that the t ri al co u rt lacke d jurisdiction be cause the Society ’s claims wer e not c og nizable unde r the UDJA and the Society had failed to plea d a jus ticiable controversy
. The TBAE also argued that the Society ’s claims we re not ripe a nd that the Society

lacke d standing . I n addition, to the extent the Society was see king judicia l decla rations re g ardingindividual suit s then pendingbefor e the State Of fice of Administrative He ari ng s, the TB AE argue d th a t th e Soc ie ty had fai le d to e xha

us t a dmi nis tr a tiv e re me die s. Alternatively , the TB AE ar g ued that the doc trine of pr imary jurisdiction applied and the tria l court should decline to exercise jurisdiction.

The trial c ourt held a hear ing to c onsider the TBA E’s plea to the jurisdiction. After the he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt g ra nte d th e TB AE ’s ple a in p art and de nie d it in p art . T he tr ia l c ourt

he ld that it la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r t

he Soc ie ty ’s c la ims e xce pt fo r tho se c la ims c ha lle ng ingthe va lid ity of the TB AE’s rule s under se ction 200 1
. 0 3 8 o f the APA. SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.038 (West 2000). The Society filed an inter locutory

appea l in this C o u rt challeng ing the trial court’ s order g rantingin part the TB AE’s plea to the jurisdiction. Th e T BA E d o es not appea l the trial court’ s assertion of jurisdiction under APA section 2001.038. See id.
DI SCU SSIO N The Society

argues that the trial c ourt err ed in g rantingthe TB AE’s plea to the jurisdiction. For the f

ollowing r easons, we conclude there was no e rror in the trial court’ s order
.4

Stan dard of Revie w

We reviewthe trial cour

t’s ruling on a plea

to the jurisdiction de novo
. Texas De p’t of Parks & W

i l d l i f e v. Miranda , 1 33 S.W. 3d 21 7, 22 8 ( Te x. 20 04 ). A p le a to t he jur isd ic tio n is
a dil a to ry pl ea th at c on te sts the tr ia l c ourt ’s a uth or ity to d e te rm ine the su

bje c t matte r o f t

he c a us e of ac tion. Bland Indep. Sc h. Dist. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). Whe n a p l ea t o the jur isd ic tio n c ha lle ng e s th e ple a din g s, we mus t de te rm ine if the ple a de r h a s a lle g e d s uf fi c ie nt f a c ts to affir matively demonstrate the trial court’ s jurisdiction to hear the ca use. Se e Te

x as As s’ n o

f B us . v. Texas Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). To make this deter mination, we look to the pleade r’s intent, construe the pl ea d i n gs liberally in favor of

jurisdiction, and acc ept the alleg ations in the pleadings as t ru e. Id. Whe re the ple a din g s d o n ot a lle g e su ff ic ie nt f a c ts t o aff irmatively

demonstrate the trial court’ s jurisdiction b u t do not affir matively demonstrate a

n incura ble jurisdictional defe ct, the issue is one of plea ding suf ficienc y , and the plaintiffs should be g iven an opportunity

to amend. Miranda , 1 33 S.W. 3d a t 22 7. I f t

he ple a din g s a ff

ir mativ e ly ne g a te t he existence of jur isdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be g rante d without allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity

to amend. Id. Regulati on of Engineers and Archit ects in Texas L ike many

oth e r s tate s, Te xas h a s im po se d d ist inc t r e g ulator

y sc hemes to r e g ulate the pra ctice of arc hitecture and eng ineer ing. SeeTex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 1051.001- .801 (West 2004 & Supp. 2008) ( Arc hitecture Practice Act) ( regulating a rchitec t s and the pr actice of ar chitectur e); Te x. Oc c . Co de Ann. §§ 1 0 0 1. 00 1- .6 01 (We st 2 00 4 & Sup p. 20 08 ) ( Te xas E ng ine e ri ngPr a c tic e Ac t) (r eg ulatin g e ng ine e rs and the pr a c tic e of

e ng ine e ri ng ); se e als o National Council of Ar chitectur al5

Reg is t ra t i o n Boa

rds, Prac tice Require ments for NCARB Member B oards, available at htt p:/ /w ww .n c arb .o rg/st a te bo ard s/M B Rf a qp ra c tic e .a sp (surve ying st ates, ter ritories, and othe r jurisdictions to determine over lap and distinctions betwee n prac tice of a rchitecture a

nd prac tice of engine er in g )
. A ls o li k e ma n y o th e r s tate s , T e xa s h a s r e c o g n iz e d th a t c e rta in

ar e a s o f p r a c tice
o v erlap betwee n the two profe ssions. See A c t o f M ay 3 1 , 2 0 0 3 , 7 8 th L e g . , R. S. , c h
. 331, § 1.04, 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 1425, 1427 (TB AE); Act of May 31, 2003, 78th L eg ., R.S., ch. 1168, § 2, 2003 Tex. Gen. L aws 3307, 3308 (T BPE).

I n 2003, both the TBPE a nd the TB AE we nt throug h sunset revie w. Whil e the leg islature dete rmined that both ag encie s should continue as indepe nd en t boards, the le g islature
cre ated the Joint Advisory Commi ttee to “wor

k to resolve issues that result from the over lap betwe en activities that constitute the pra ctice of eng ineer ing a

nd th o s e t h at co nstitut e the pr actice of
arc hite c tu r e . ” T e x. O c c . Co d e A n n . § § 1 0 0 1
. 2 1 6 ( d ) ( T B PE ) , 1 0 5 1
. 2 1 2 ( d ) ( T B A E )
. I n 2 005, the J oint Advisory

Commi ttee issued an opinion addres s i ng the “historica l disag ree ment betwee n the respective B oards c oncer ning the statutory

authority over c omprehe nsive building de sign.” See Texas Att’y Gen. Op. GA-0391 (J an. 10, 2006) (citing Joi nt Advisory Commi ttee on the Pra ctice of Eng ineer ing a

nd Ar ch i tecture , Building Design Joint Advisory Opinion (Apr. 7, 2005) ). L ater that same y ear , the TB PE issued its own advisory opinion. SeeTBPE, P olicy Adv isory Opinion R egarding Building Design (June 1, 2005), 30 Tex. R eg . 3461-62 (2005) . The TB PE opinion
co n cl u d ed t h at t h e p ra ct i ce o f e n gi n ee ri n g i n cl u d edb u i l d i n g d es i gnan d , t h er ef o re , b u i l d i n g d es i gn “may be per formed e x clusively by a license d profe ssional eng ineer competent in this field.” Id.6

La c k o f S tan din g Throug h its lawsuit and appea l to this Court, the S o ci ety seeks a judicial de te rm inatio n o f t

he lon g sta

nd ingdis pute ov e r wh ic h a g e nc y ha s a uth or ity to re g ulate pr of

e ssi on a ls in the two cate g ories and whether either ag ency has authority

to regulate prof

essionals in the other
c a t e g o r y— i.e. , w he the r t

he TB AE ha s a

uth or ity to re g ulate e ng ine e rs and vic e ve rs a . T he Soc ie ty contends that the tria l court had subjec t-matter jurisdiction to decide t h e S ociety ’s claims under the UDJA. W e disag ree .

The UD J A is a re medial statute that neither cre ates nor a

ug ments subject-matter jurisdiction in a trial court. See Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Cod e Ann. § 37. 00 3 (We st 1 99 7) ; Che na ult v. Phillips , 9 14 S.W. 2d

14 0, 14 3 ( Te x. 19 96 ); se e als o Tex as As s’ n o f B us . , 852 S.W .2d at 444. An action under

the UDJA will not lie unless t h er e i s (1) a justiciable controve rsy

reg ardingthe rig hts and status o f t h e p ar ties befor e the c ourt for a djudication; and (2) the decla ration soug ht will actually

resolve that controver sy . Brooks v. Northglen Ass’n , 141 S.W .3d 158, 163 (Tex. 2004); Te x as W or k e rs’ Com p. Com m’n v . G ar c ia , 8 93 S.W. 2d 50 4, 51 7-18 (Tex . 1 99 5) . H e re , th is i s essentially

a q u es t i o n of standing
. Se e Ga rc ia , 8 93 S.W. 2d a t 51 7- 18 ; Te

x as As s’ n o

f B us . , 852 S.W .2d at 444.

B e c a us e the Soc iety is an ass oc iatio n s uin g on be ha lf of its ind ivi du a l me mbe rs , we mus t c on sid e r t

he qu e sti on

of a sso c iatio na l stand ing
. Th e Soc ie ty do e s not d isp ute that it mus t
e sta bli shsta nd ingin o rd e r t o invo ke the jur isd ic tio n o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt , but th e Soc ie ty fa ils to
ac kn o wl ed ge t h e p ro p er

t es tfo r a s s o ci at i o n al s t an d i n g. C i t i n g Brown v. Todd , 53 S.W .3d 294, 305 (T e x. 20 01 ), the Soc ie ty argue s tha t it may e sta

bli sha sso c iatio na l st and ingby de mon str a tin g that it s7

member s s at i s fy

the g ener al test for individual standing . Contrary to the Society ’s sug g estion, individual standing alone does not e quate to a ssociational standing ; it is me rely one element of the t es tfo r a s s o ci at i o n al s t an d i n g.

Th e te st f

or a sso c iatio na l st and ingwa s e sta bli sh e d by the su

pr e me c ourt

in Te x as As so c iat ion of B us ine ss v . Te x as Ai r Co ntrol B oa rd
. See85 2 S.W.2 d at 44 7. Un de r t his te st,

“ an a sso c iatio n ha s sta

nd ingto s ue on

be ha lf of its me mbe rs wh e n ‘ (a ) i ts m e mbe rs wo uld oth e rw ise have sta nding to sue in their own rig ht; (b) the i n t ere sts it s eeks to prote ct ar e g erma ne to the org anization’s purpose; an d (c) neither the claim asser ted nor the r elief r equeste d require s the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.’” Id. (q u o t i n g Hu nt v . W as hingto n S

tate Ap ple Comm’n , 432 U.S. 333, 343 ( 1977)). Applying this test to the ca se bef ore us, we conclude that the Society lacks standingto pursue the r elief it see ks in this case. Th e fi rs t pr on g of

the te st f

or a sso c iatio nal st and ingre qu ir e s th a t th e Soc ie ty demonstrate that its members have standing to sue in their own beha lf. See id. The TB AE urg es that the Society

failed to satisfy

this prong. T he purpose of this prong “is simply to w eed out plaintiffs who try to bring case s, which could not otherw ise be brought, by manufa cturingalleg ations of standing that lack a

ny rea l foundation.” Id. (q u o t i n g Ne w Y or k Sta te Clu b Ass ’n v . City of N e w York, 478 U
. S. 1 , 9 ( 1 9 8 8 ) )
. T h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s d e mo n s tr a te s th a t me mb e r s o f th e So c ie ty h a v e been the subject of a dminist rative pr ocee dings initiated by the TB AE for alleg ed violations of the Arc hitectura l Practice Act. Althoug h none of the se matters has resulted in a penalty being imposed
a g a ins t any

me mbe r o f the Soc ie ty , the ple a din g s d e mon str a te that th e Soc ie ty ’s me mbe rs are a t r isk of penalty
. See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 1051.451- .452 (allowingimposit ion of administrativeI n May 2007, the TB AE initiated contested c ase pr ocee dings unde r the APA a g ainst three 4 li c e n s e d e ng ineer s. See Tex. Occ. Code Ann. § 1051.401 ( West 2004); Tex . Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 2001.003(1), .051 ( West 2000). 8 penalty and setting amount of penalty ). Be cause the risk of penalty is sufficient, see Texas Ass’n of Bu s. , 852 S.W .2d at 447, we c onclude that the Socie ty satisfies th e fi rs t p ro n g of the test for
as s o ci at i o n al s t an d i n g.

Th e se c on d p ro ngof

the te st r e qu ir e s th e Soc ie ty to de mon str a te that th e int e re sts it seeks to prote ct ar e g erma ne to the Society ’s purpose. See id. The Society ’s pleading s state that the
m i s s i o no f t h e S o ci et y

“i s t o p ro m o t e t h e e t h i ca l , co mp et en tan d l i ce n s edp ra c t i c e o f e n gi n ee ri n g, and to enha

nce the profe ssional, social and economic well being of i ts members.” We conclude that the int e re sts the Soc ie ty se e ks to pr ote c t are g e rm ane to i ts p ur po se and that th e se c on d p ro ngis m e t. Under the third and final prong of this test, the Society “must demonstrate that neither the claim asse rted nor the relief reque st ed require the par ticipation of individual members in the lawsuit.” See id. at 448. In Te x as As so c iat ion of B us ine ss , the s upreme court re cog nized that where
an assoc iation by its suit “see ks only prospec tive relief , raises only issues of law, a nd need not pr ove the individual circumstanc es to obtain that relief ,” the third prong of the test is met. Id. Applying these re quirements to the ca se bef ore us, we conclude the Society fails to satisfy

the third prongof t h e t es tfo r a s s o ci at i o n al s t an d i n g.

Her e, unlike in Te

x as As so c iat ion of B us ine ss , th e Soc ie ty do e s n ot s e e k o nly prospec tive relief

. Whil e its UD J A claims are couche d in te rms of decla ratory and injunctive re lief, its pleadings demonstrate that the Society seeks judicial de clar ations and injunctions that will be applied in c ases pending befor e SOAH. The S ociety thus seeks an end run a round the re quirement 49

to exhaust admini strative re medies in favor of a de termination applica ble to all of its members under any circ umstances—pa st, present, or f uture. L ike w is e , w e c o n c lude that the Society ’s re quests for de clar atory and injunctive re lief do not pr esent pure issues of law. The are a of overla p betwee n these two profe ssions h as b een square ly addre ssed by

the leg islature an d re q u ires a f act- intensive ana ly sis. The leg islature has deleg ated authority to the TBA E to regulate the practice of arc hit e c tur e and

to t he TB PE t o r e g ulate the practice of eng ineer ing. SeeTex. Occ. Code Ann. §§ 1001.003, .004, .201 (def ining pr actice of
e ng ine e ri ng ; de sc ri bin g le g isl a tiv e int e nt a nd purp os e ; and

de le g a tin g e nf

or c e me nt a

uth or ity to the TB PE) ; id. §§ 1051.001(7), .0015, .501 (def ining practice of ar chitectur e; desc ribing leg islative purp os e ; and

de le g a tin g e nf

or c e me nt a

uth or ity to T B AE ). Th e le g isl a tur e has d e fi ne d w hat is included within “the pr actice of ar chitectur e” and “the prac tice of e ng ineer ing.” Id. §§ 1001.003, 1051.001(7). And the leg islature has pr ov i d ed s t at u tory exemptions for e ach pr ofession. Id. §§ 1001.063 (providing exemption from Tex as Engin eering Practice Act for arc hitects prac ticing
arc hitecture ) , 1 0 5 1
. 6 0 1 ( p r o v id in g e xe mp ti o n

f r o m A r c h it e c tu r e Pr a c tice Ac t for eng ineer s prac ticing eng ineer ing) . By

deleg ating eac h board the au t h o ri t y t o regulate the practice of ea ch prof ession, defining “the prac tice of arc hitecture ” and “the prac tice of eng ineer ing,” and provid i n g statutory exemptions for both prof

essions, it is clear that the le g islature intended f or ea ch boar d to consider whether the par ticular c onduct at issue mee ts the statutory definition of eac h profe ssion and whether
ane x e mp t i o na

p p l i e s . S u c h ani n qu i r

y i s f a c t - i n t e n s i v e an d

c ano n l y b e d o n e o na

c a s e - b yc a se ba sis
.As t he attorne y g ener al has re cog nized, the Architec ture Prac tice Ac t contains an 5 exemption for licensed eng ineer s to the ex tent they perf orm ac ts, service s, or works within the scope of t he practice of eng ineer ing. See Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. G A-0391 (Jan. 10, 2006) (c iting Te x . Occ
. Code Ann. § 1051.601 (West 2004)). B ut, in order to deter mine whether the exemption applies, one must ex amine the individual ac ts, service s, or works pr ovided to det er m i n e if they fall within the p ra ct i ce o f e n gi n ee ri n g. 10

As part of its de clar atory relief , the Society seeks decla

rations under

the UDJA that “compr ehensive building desig n” is within the scope of eng ineer ing, that eng ineer s are exempt from the Ar c hit e c tur a l Pr a c tic e Ac t, t hat th e TB AE la c ks jur isd ic tio n ove r en g ine e rs , an d that th e TB PE ha s e xclu siv e or ig ina l or , in the a lte rn a tiv e , p ri mary

jur isd ic tio n o ve r t

he re g ulatio n o f e ng ine e rs . The Society also seeks injunctive relief to pr eclude the TBA E from initiati n g enforceme nt pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t li c e ns e d e ng ine e rs fo r t he a lle g e d v iol a tio n o f t

he Ar c hit ect ure Pr a c tic e Ac t. Al tho ug h th e Soc ie ty

ur g e s th a t th e se c la ims pr e se nt onl y qu e sti on s of law an d a re so lut ion

of thi s
c a se wi ll p ro vid e “ g e ne ra l” re lie f to its mem be rs , upo n f

ur the r i nq uir y , it be c ome s c le ar t

hat it wi ll be nec essar

y to reviewthe par

ticular c onduct of the e ng i n ee r at issue to deter mine whether compre hensive building desig n falls within the prac tice of a rchitec ture or wh et h er the particular
c on du c t of

an e ng ine e r i s e xemp t f

ro m th e Ar c hit e c tur a l Pr a c tic e Ac t. I n order to obtain the relief 5
so ug ht, it w ill thu s b e ne c e ssa ry to p ro ve the ind ivi du a l c ir c umst ances of the Soc ie ty ’s me mbe rs . For this reason, we conclude the S ociety fails t he thi rd prong of the test for a ssociational standing
and , th e re fo re , la c ks sta

nd ingto p ur su e the de c larator y and inj un c tiv e re lie f i t se e ks
. I n s up po rt of its c la im that it

ha s st and ingto p ur su e thi s su it o n b e ha lf of its me mbe rs , th e So c ie ty

r e li e s o nth is Co u rt’ s d e c is io nin T exas StateBo ar

d o f P od iat ric Me dic al E

x am ine rs v. Texas O rthopaedic Association , No. 03-04-00253- CV, 2004 Tex. App. L EXI S 10031, at *4-11We observe that the trial court de nied the TB AE’s p l ea to the jurisdiction reg ardingthe 6 Society ’s validity

challeng es to the Board’ s rules under section 2001.038 of t he gover nment code, and those claims rema in pending below. The TBA E has not cha lleng ed this partial denia l of its plea to t he jur isd ic tio n o n a

pp e a l. 11 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). The Socie ty ’s re liance on Te x as Sta te Bo ar

d of Po di at ric Me dic al E

x am ine rs is mis pla c e d. I n that c a se , thi s Court c on c lud e d that the Te xas O rt ho pa e dic As so c iatio n h a d s tand ingunde r s e c tio n 2 00 1. 03 8 o f t he g ov e rnme nt c od e to c ha lle ng e a ru le promulg ated by the Boa

rd. Id. at *9-11. Applying the test for a ssociational standing established by the supreme court in Te

x as As so c iat ion of B us ine ss , this Court conclude d that all three prong s were met and, more specific ally , that the Tex as Orthopaedic Association’s reque st for a decla ration that the B oard’ s rule was i n valid prese nted a que stion of law that did not require the par ticipation of ind ivi du a l me mbe rs . Id. at *10-11. B eca use we have de termined that the Socie ty ’s claims for 6 decla ratory and injunctive re lief—excluding the Society ’s challeng es t o the validity of TB AE rules under g overnme nt code s ec t i on 2001.038, see note 6, su pra —will require the participation of individual members, this Court’s decision in Te x as Sta te Bo ar

d o f P od iat ric Me dic al E

x am ine rs is distinguishable.

The c ase of Rec onvey ance Service s v. T exas Department of Insurance , 240 S.W .3d 418 (Tex. App.—Austin 2007, pet. filed), is likewi s e inapposit e. In that case , a cor poration challeng ed the De partment’s a uthority to regulate spec ific business pra ctices in Te x as. See id. at 426 (allegingthat nothing g ives the De partment a uthority to prohibit companies from of fer ing Reconve y ance ’s post-closing mortg ag e re lease service s). Unl i k e the Society in this case, Reconve y ance was not re quired to establish assoc iational standing
. See generally id. This Court’s12

holding in that ca se is thus irreleva nt to the question before us—namely , whether the S o ci ety

has
s at i s fi edt h e t es tfo r a s s o ci at i o n al s t an d i n g.

Havingconclude d that the S ociety lacks standing to pursue the relief it seeks, we find
no err or in the trial cour

t’s order g rantingthe TB AE’s plea to the jurisd i ct i o n wi t h reg ard to the Society ’s claims for decla ratory and injunctive re lief under the UDJA, and we de cline to re ach the Society ’s re maining a

rguments in s u p p o rt of its claim that the trial cour t erre d in gr anting the TBA E’s plea

to the jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P . 47.1.
CO NC LU SION F ind ingno e rr or

in t he tr ia l c ourt ’s or de r, we a ff ir m.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Waldrop and H enson Affir med Filed: Oc tober 24, 2008