NO. 07-06 -042 1-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C NO VEM BER29, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ LARRY ACKERS, APP ELL ANT

V. CI TY OF LU BBOC K, A PPELLE E

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 72 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; ND NO . 200 6- 533,594 ; H ON ORABLE RU BEN R EY ES, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION Appel lan t, Lar ry

Ac kers, appeal s t he tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment g ra nti ng appel lee ’s , t he C i t y o f L u b b o c k , P l e a t o t h e J u r i s d i c t i o n a n d d i s m i s s i n g h i s c l a i m s w i t h p r ej u d i c e . We re v erse the j udg ment and remand th e c ase to t he tr ial co urt.In rev iew of a trial court’s ruling o n a p lea to the jurisdiction , w e mu st take all 1 factual al leg ati ons ple d as tr ue, u nle ss j ur is dicti onal ly rele v ant e v ide nce w as off ered th at negate s jurisdiction. Blan d Ind ep. Sch. Di s t
. v. B lu e, 34 S.W .3d 547 , 554 (Tex. 2000 ); Nuece s Count y

v . Ferguson, 97 S.W .3d 205 , 213 (Tex.App .–Corp us Christi 2002 , no pe t.). Al l facts re ci ted i n thi s o pin ion are from A ck ers’ s l iv e pl eadi ng unl ess othe rw is e not ed. 2 Back g ro und Acc ordin g to Ack ers’ s li v e ple adi ng s, on Apr il 23, 2 005, Ack ers l ear ned t hat a y outh 1 baske tba ll g am e w as be ing play ed in th e gy mn asium at his church . At thattime, Ackers w as enroll ed in a photog ra phy cl ass at Tex as Tech Uni v ersi ty and had a pe n din g assignme nt to pho tograph a n ent ertain me nt event. T o com plete the assignm ent , Ackers atte nde d the g am e an d too k pictures of the pa rticipant s and atte nde es. T w o of the gam e’s atten dees confronted Ack ers about his photog ra phi ng the chi ldren. Ack ers e x pla ine d w hy he w as tak ing the pictures, but the a ttend ees c a lle d the Lubboc k P oli ce Dep artment to re p o rtA c k e rs ’s a c t ivi t ie s a n ywa y. In respon se to t his ca ll , Lub bock Pol ic e Dep artment (L PD ) Off ic er Scott O ’N eil w as dis patc hed t o i nv est ig ate a sus pic iou s person tak ing phot og ra phs of ev er y one’ s c hil dren at a ba sketb all g am e. Follow ing his arriv al at the game , O’Neil seized Ackers’s f ilm. O’Neil com plete d an inciden tr e p o rt and the incide nt w as referred to the Juvenile Crimes, Inv est ig ati v e D iv is ion
. On M ay 11, 2005, Ack ers w ent t o the pol ic e s tati on and met w it h Assi sta nt C hie f of the L PD , Thomas Espa rz a. Espa rz a infor med Ack ers that the inv est ig ati on w oul d l ik ely be c l os ed , bu t th att he i nfo r ma ti on g at he r ed w ou l d r em ai n in th e po l i c e da ta s y s te m. Lie utenantJe re my Brew er of t he J uv eni le Cr imes , I nv est ig ati v e D iv is ion , w as cal led i nto3

Ackers’s me eting w ith Espa rz a. Brewer told Ackers tha t he had to have permission before h e co u ld t a k e p ic t u re s o f t h e ch il d re n . Br e we r’ s st a t e m e n twa s m a d e a s a n a f f ir m a t ive sta tement of LPD pol icy . On M ay 17, 2005, Det ect iv e R osann a Lang sto n c all ed Ac kers a nd not ified him that the p arents ar e final ly sat is fied, t hat h e s houl d hav e obt ain ed per mis si on before tak ing the pho tos, a nd th at his na me w ill rema in on f ile as an inv olved party in this inciden t and w ould “s how up” i f Acke rs w as sto pped for a t ra ff icv iol ati on i n the f u tu re . Ackers w as nev er charg ed w it h a c ri me as a resul t of hi s p hotog ra phi ng the bask etbal l g ame. In res ponse to the e v ents des cr ibe d abov e, A ck ers fil ed s uitag ain st the C ity of Lub bock requesting 2 3 decla ration s, includin g a de claration thatLPD’s pho tograph y policy is unc onst it uti onal ; eq uit abl e reli ef, in clu din g a pe rmane nt i nju nct ion ; and co sts and ex pense s, inc lud ing att or ney ’s fees. The C ity f il ed a Pl ea to the Jur is dic ti on as ser ti ng that itw as immune from thi s s uitbas ed on it s g ov er nmental i mmun it y. T h e tri al cour t hel d a hear ing on t he C ity ’s pl ea w here i t hea rd the arg uments of both parti es on the j ur is dicti onal is sue. F oll ow ing the hear ing , t he tr ial co urt s ig ned a jud g ment sus tai nin g the Ci ty ’s pl ea and di smi ss ing Ac kers’ s c lai ms. Ackers req uest ed f ind ing s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law and t he tr ial co ur

t made findi ng s a nd c oncl usi ons. By fo u r i s s u e s , A c k e rs a p p e a l s . B y h i s fi rs t i s s u e , A c k e rs c o n t e n d s t hat t he tr ial court erred in sustainin g the City ’s plea to th e jurisdiction. By his second issue, Acke rs cont ends that any

ev ide nce cons ide re d by the tr ial co urt w as not d is cl osed to A ck ers. By his thi rd i ss ue, A ck ers c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt’ s fin din g s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law4

ar e i mmater ial to the j ur is dicti onal i ss ue. Fi nal ly , by his fourt h i ss ue, A ck ers c ontends that the re is no evi den ce to sup port th e trial court’s judgme nt. W e w ill add ress only Ackers’s f irst and th ird issues, as the y are the only is s u es ne cessary to fin al dispo sition of this appeal
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.1. Pl ea to the Jur is dicti on By his f irst issue, Ackers cont end s thatthe trial court erred in su stainin g the City ’s P l e a to th e Ju r i s d i c t i o n as to hi s cl a i ms fo r d e c l a ra t o r

y re l i e f, fo r

i n j u n c t i v e re l i e f, a n d o f a tak ing under

ar ti cl e 1, sec ti on 17, of the Tex as Con sti tuti on. Subj ect -mat ter

jur is dicti on is ess enti al to the author ity of a c our t t o dec ide a c ase. See Tex . As s' n of Bus . v . Tex . Ai r Con trol Bd., 852 S.W .2d 4 40, 4 43 ( Tex .1993)
. A chal len g e to w hether a cour t has subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on may be rais ed by

a pl ea to the jurisdiction. Bland In dep . Sch. Dist., 3 4 S
. W
. 3 d at 554 . W het her a cou rt has subject ma tter jurisdiction ov er a case is a legal question and , the refore, w e rev iew a trial court’s ru li ng on a pl ea to the jur is dicti on unde r a de n ovo st a n d a rd o f re vie w. Ma yh e w v. T o wn of Sunnyv ale , 964 S.W .2d 9 22, 9 28 ( Tex . 199 8)
. A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea , the purpo se of w hich is to de feata cause of acti on w it hout re gar d t o w hether the cl aims as ser

ted h av e mer it
. Bl and I ndep. Sch. Di st. , 34 S.W .3d a t 554
. The pur pose of a di lat or y pl ea i s n o t to forc e the pl ain ti ff to preview their case on the m erits, butto esta bli s h a r e a s o n w hy the merits of the case shou ld notbe reach ed. Id. As such, w e revi ew a ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction by first ex amini n g t h e c la ims i n the pl ain ti ff ’s pl eadi ng s, tak ing the facts ple d the re in as tr ue, t o5

deter mine w hether

thos e facts su ppor

t t he tr ial co urt’ s j ur is d icti on. Nue ces C ounty , 97 S.W .3d a t 213
. How ev er , w e may al so cons ide r ev ide nce submi tted that is rele v ant t o the jur is dic ti onal i ss ue and w e must cons ide r thi s ev ide nce w hen i t i s n eces sar y to re sol v e the is sue of jur is dicti on. Bl and I ndep. Sch. D is t., 34 S .W .3d a t 555
. W hen l ookin g a t t he pl ain ti ff ’s pl eadi ng s, w e mustco nst ru e the pl eadi ng s i n the pla int iff’s fav or

and loo k to the pleader ’s intent
. Nue ces County , 97 S.W .3d at 213. The plaint if f bea rs the bu rden to allege facts af f irmatively

dem o n s t ra ting the trial court’s jur is dic ti on to hear the cas e. Id. If a pla int iff pl eads facts that aff irm a ti vely demonst ra te the absen ce of j ur is dicti on and the d efect i s i ncurabl e, t hen t he c ase is proper ly di smi ss ed. Id. H ow ev er , i f the pl ain ti ff ’s pl eadi ng s do notdemons trate t he tr ial co urt’ s j ur is dic ti on, b ut ar e notaff ir mati v ely

incurabl e, the proper

remedy is to all ow

the pla int iff an oppo rt uni ty to amend th e pl eadi ng s b efore di smi ss al. Id
. S e e a ls o C ounty of Cameron v . Brow n, 80 S.W .3d 549 , 555 (Tex. 2002 ); Peek v. Eq uip. Se rv . Co., 77 9 S.W .2d 8 02, 8 05 (T ex. 1989 ). In th e pr e s e n tc a s e , the City , by its plea to the jurisdiction , alleged tha t Ackers’s cl aims w ere ba rred by

the doct ri ne of g ov er nmental i mmunity
. Gov er nmental i mmunity protec ts g ov er nmen ta l enti ti es from l aw sui ts for damag es absen t l eg is lat iv e c onsen t. Nue ces C ounty , 97 S.W .3d a t 216 -1 7. There are, ho w ev er , certai n ex cept ion s t o go ve rn m e n t a l i m m u n it y. G o v e r n m e n t a l i m m u n it y m a y b e wa ive d b y e xp re s s le gi s la t ive p e rm is s io n , s u c h a s a re s o lu t io n gra n t in g p e rm is s io n fo r a p e rs o n t o f il e su it , o r b y a sta tutor y w aiv er . Id. at 21 7. Cer tai n prov is ion s o f the Tex as Con sti tuti on are s elf- enact ing and prov ide the ri g ht t o br ing su it a gai nsta g ov er nmental enti ty for v iol ati ons of the provisi on wi tho ut th e ne ed for legisl ative consen t. Id. Action s t h a ts e ek to set tle6

uncer tai nty and ins ecur ity

w it h resp ectto ri g hts , s tatus , or othe r leg al re lat ion s o r that seek a dec laration that offici als ac ted w it hout leg al author ity or ac ted i n ac cordance w it h an uncon sti tuti onal l aw

do n ot req uire c onsen t, prov ide d tha t t hese sui ts do not s eek money dam ages. Id. at217 -18. A plain tif f f iling suit against a governme nta l e n t it y mustassert cl aims for w hic h i mmunity has been w aiv ed and facts that fall w it h in t h e s cope of that w aiv er . See Tex . D ep’ t of C ri m. J ust ic e v . M il ler , 51 S.W .3d 583, 587 ( Tex . 200 1) ; N ueces Cou nty , 97 S.W .3d a t 217
. I n t h e p r e s e n tc a s e , A c k e rs a s s e rt e d c l a i ms fo r d e c l a ra t o r y re l i e f, i n j u n c t i v e re l i e f, and eq uit abl e reli ef to c ompensat e hi m for t he ta ki ng of his fil m. As n o ev ide nce w as off ered th at w oul d be neces sar y to the j ur is dic ti onal i ss ue, we will c onfine ou r re v iew to Ack ers’ s ple adi ng s, cons tr uin g thos e ple adi ng s in Ack ers’ s fav or and loo ki ng to hi s i ntent
. Nuece s Count y , 97 S. W .3d at 213 . Becau se w e con clude thatthe trial court ha d subject ma tter jurisdiction over at least one cla im asserte d by Ackers, w e w ill limit our revi ew to th is cl aim. Se e T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.1. A c k e rs ’ s C l a i m fo r

D e c l a ra t o r

y R e l i e f Ack ers req uest ed 23 decl arati ons f rom the t ri al cour t. The pr imar

y dec larati on soug ht w as that any

pol icy or procedu re of the C ity

thatw as used to ju stifyany unl awful act ion tak en ag ain st Ack ers b e found to be uncon sti tuti onal and decl ared v oid as a mat ter of law
. Ma ny

of Ack ers’ s req uest s for dec larati ons se e k decl arati ons that the C ity commi tted act s t hat w oul d make i t l iab le under a nu mber of different c auses of act ion
.W e not e that Tex as Penal Cod e sec ti on 21.15 makes it an off ense to ph otog ra ph 2 ano the r w ithou t the p erson ’s co nsen t and w ith inte nt to arouse or g ratif y the sexual de sire of anyperson. Se e T EX . P EN . C OD E A NN . § 21.1 5(b) (Vernon Supp . 200 7). Th e City ’s pol icy , as al leg ed by

Ac kers, re mov es the m ens re a elem entof t h is o f f ense . Th us, Ackers’s plea ding is not challen ging the validity of secti o n 2 1
. 1 5 nor is the City ’s policy author iz ed by

thi s s ect ion
. 7 How ev er , Ac kers d oes not s peci fical ly req uestmonetar

y re li ef for any

of thes e c auses of act ion
. As prev iou sl y

menti oned, no c onsen t or w aiv er of g ov er nmental i mmu n i ty i s re q u ired w hen a s ui t s ee k s on l y a de c l arat i on or en forc em en t of r i g ht s . Tex
. N at ur al Res. Con ser v ati on C omm’n v . I T-D avy , 74 S.W .3d 8 49, 8 55 ( Tex . 200 2 ). A sui t und er the Un ifo rm De cla ra to ry Jud gm e n t A ctor a su ital le gin g ult ra vi re s a c ts falls w ithin th is ex cept ion
. Nue ces C ounty , 97 S.W .3d a t 217 -1 8. The r e a so n that the se sui ts do not re q uire c onsen t or

w aiv er of immuni ty

i s b ecaus e the y

do n ot s eek to s ubj ectthe g ov er nmental enti ty

to li abi li ty
. Tex . N atural Res . C onser v ati on C om m’n, 74 S .W .3d a t 8 55. How ev er , w hen a par ty br ing s a su itos tens ibl y to deter mine or

protec t r ig hts but seek s mone tar

y damag es, g ov er nm e n tal i mmunity bars t he s uit
. Id. at 85 6; N ueces Cou nty , 97 S.W .3d a t 218
. In th e prese nt case, Ackers pled tha t the City , throu gh its police de partm ent , has a pol icy req uir ing thatparental per mis si on be o b tained be fore pho tog ra phs of minors may be ta ken. As the Ci ty pr esent ed no ev ide nce to cont ro v ert t his al leg ati on, w e mustac cept

2 the e x is tenc e of su ch a pol icy as tr ue. See B lan d Ind ep. S ch. D is t., 34 S .W .3d a t 555 ; Nuece s Count y , 97 S. W .3d at 213 . Th e Uniform Decla ratory Ju d gm e nt Act p rov ides, in par t, that,8

Ap e rs o n . . . wh o s e ri gh t s , s t a t u s , o r ot h e r le ga l re la t io n s a re a f fe c t e d b y a sta tute, muni ci pal ordin ance, co ntract , o r fra n c h i s e m a y

h a v e det er mined any q uest ion of cons tr uct ion o r val idi ty ar is ing under

the ins tr ument, sta tute, ordina nce, con t ra c t , or fran chise an d ob tain a declarat ion of rig hts, sta tus, or othe r leg al relation s thereu nde r. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 37.004( a) (Ver non Supp. 2007)
. The Ci ty co ntends that, bec ause Ack ers’ s cl aim chal len g es the v ali dity of a pol icy

rather than of an i nst ru ment, sta tute, ordin ance, co ntract , or franc his e, the Uni form D ecl arator y Ju dg ment Act doe s n ot re mov e g ov er nmental i mmunity for A ck ers’ s p ri mary

c la im f or

dec larator

y reli ef and, t h e re fo re , itis b a rr e d b y go ve rn m e n t a l i m m u n it y. W hile Ackers’s challen ge of the const itution ality of the City ’s policy is not spe cif ically iden tif ied in sectio n 37 .00 4(a), w e conclu de tha t the f ailure of the sect ion to specif ically list a city ’s policy

as being capa ble of

ch allenge by de clarato ry a ction doe s n ot me an th at such an act ion is bar re d by g ov er nmental immuni ty
. Fi rs t, sec ti on 37.003( c) prov ide s t hat t he enu me ration s in Section 37.0 04 “do not limit or restrict the ex ercise of t he general po w ers confer re d by

thi s s ect ion i n any

proceed ing i n w hic h dec larator y reli ef is so ug ht an d a judgme nt or de cree w ill term inate the con trover s y o r re m ove an unce rtainty.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 37 .0 03 ( c ) ( Ve r no n 19 97 )
. W e c on c l ud e th att he p r i ma ry decl arati on s oug ht by

Ackers in the pres ent cas e w il l re mov e unc ertai nty reg ardin g r ig hts and w ill resolve the con troversy regarding w het her the City ’s poli c y i s va li d . Further, becau se Ack ers is not re q uest ing m onetar y damages , but rather

is seek ing a decl arati on that the C ity ’s pol icy

i s u ncons ti tuti onal , he does not need an ex press statut or y w aiv er of g ov e rn m e n ta l immuni ty to seek dec larator

y reli ef. See Tex . N atural Res . C onser v ati on Com m’n , 74 S. W .3d at 855 . As a res u lt , we conclud e tha t Ackers’s request for a9

decl arati on th at an y

pol icy or pro ce d u re of the C ity

thatw as used to j ust ify any unl awful act ion tak en ag ain st Ack ers b e found to be uncon sti tuti onal and decl ared v oid as a mat ter of law falls w ithin the scope of the Uniform Decla ratory Judgm entAct. How ever, becau se this request for declara tory relief doe s not see k to imp ose liab ility on the City , an express sta tutor y w aiv er of g ov er nmenta l im m u n ity i s n ot req uired for the t ri al cour t’ s e x er ci se of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on. The Ci ty arg ues that Ack ers’ s D is cov e r y C ontrol Pl an al leg ati on th at t he s uiti nv olv es a defendant w ho is li kel y to be li abl e in an amount i n ex ces s o f $50,000 e sta bli shes that his cl aims are ac tua lly c la ims for mone tar y damag es and are, t herefore, bar re d by the doct rine of

g overnme nta l immu nity. How ever, in his liv e plea ding, Ackers ma kes a claim that w oul d ent it le him to monetar y damages
. T he T ex as Cons ti tuti on permi ts a par ty to seek eq uit abl e reli ef in the for m of adeq uate compens ati on for a g ov er nmental tak ing of thei r proper

ty
. See T EX . C ON ST . art. I, sec. 17; C ity of Beaumont v . Bo uil li on, 8 96 S. W .2d 143 , 149 (Tex. 1 995 ). Beca use Ackers’s liv e plea ding in clude s a taking claim, for w hich monetar y damag es maybe a w arded, w e do not c onst ru e his p rim ar y req uestfor decla ratory judgme nt to be a veiled claim for mo net arydam ages. How ev er , ev en w ere w e to cons tr ue Ac kers’ s p ri mary req uestfor d ecl arator

y reli ef to req uestmonetar

y damag es, the tr ial co urt s houl d not hav e dismi ss ed his cas e w it hout firs t gi v ing Ackers an opportu nity to amend his ple adi ng s. See Fr y man v . W il barg er

Gen. Hos p., 207 S. W .3d 4 40, 4 42 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2006, no pet. h.)
. The re cord does not re flectthatAc kers w as afforded an o p por tuni ty to amend hi s p lea din g s b efore t he tr ial court dism issed his case w ith prejud ice. Th us, even i f t he co nstruct ion of

Ackers’s10

ple adi ng thati s a dv anced by the Ci ty w ere acc epted, Ac kers c oul d amend his pl eadi ng to remo v e the assertion thatthe de fend antw ill likely be liable in excess of

$50 ,00 0 f rom h is ide nti ficat ion of the D is cov er y C ontrol Pl an. Fi ndi ng s o f Factand Con cl usi ons of Law Byhi s t h i rd i s s u e , A c k e rs c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s fi n d i n g s o f fa ct and conc lusi o ns of law

rela te s ole ly

to the mer it s o f the s uit and, therefore, are i mmater ial to a det er minat ion of

w hether the tr ial co urt has su bje ct matter j ur is dic ti on ov er

Ac kers’ s s uit
. T he trial cou rt mad e f a c t u a l fin dings thatthe LP D of f icers inv olved in this mat ter “w ere act ing w it hin the sc ope of t hei r off ic ial duti es as ci ty pol ic e off ic ers d ur ing the inv est ig ati on” and t hat t he ac ti ons of the officers w ere “ proper and law ful as a respon se to k eep t he pea ce.” Th e trial court ma de conclu sions of la w t hatt he City

“is imm une f rom liability ” in thi s c ase, the Ci ty

is “i mmune f ro m li abi li ty for t he ac ti ons of its peac e off ic ers” i n thi s c ase, and Ac kers “ demonst ra ted n o w aiv er” of the C ity ’s i mmunity
. B a s e d o n t h e sc o p e o f o u r r e v i e w o f

a ru li n g o n a p le a t o t h e ju ri s d ic t io n , we c on c l ud e th att he t r i al c ou rt’ s fi nd i ng s o f fac t are no t s up po rte d by e v i de nc e or

A c k ers ’s ple adi ng and rel ate to the m er it s o f the c ase ra ther than to the t ri al cour

t’ s a uthor ity

to hear the c ase. The scop e of our rev iew

of a ru li ng on a plea to the juri sdi cti on is li mite d to the cl aims i n t h e pl ain ti ff ’s pl eadi ng s, tak ing the facts ple d the re in as tr ue, t o det er mine w hether thos e facts su ppor

t t he tr ial co urt’ s jur is dic ti on. Nue ces County , 97 S.W .3d a t 213
. Ev ide nce submi tted that is neces sar y to re sol v e the is sue of j ur is dicti on m u st al so be consid ered . Bland Inde p. Sch . Dist., 3 4 S.W .3d a t 555
. I n the p resen t case, no evidenceW e no te th at th e trial court’ s c o n c lu s io ns of law specif ically

referen ce the City ’s 3 immuni ty from li abi li ty
. For a decl arator y j udg ment ac ti on to av oid the bar of g ov er nmental immuni ty , i t may not seek monetar y damag es. Tex . N atural Res . C onser v ati on C omm’n, 74 S. W .3d at 855; Nueces Coun ty, 97 S.W .3d at 218. As a result, o ur ana ly sis of Ackers’s prima ry declarat ory

ju dgme nt claim esta blishes only th at the City is not im mu ne f rom su it and doe s not ne gate the court’s conclu sion th at th e City is imm une f rom liab ility . How ever, Ack ers’ s c lai m for ade q uate compens ati on f o r a g ov er nmental tak ing does i mpli cat e the court’s con clusions. 11 neces sar

y to re sol uti on of the jur is dicti onal i ss ue w as submi tted. Thus , our rev iew of the jurisdictiona l issue is l imite d to th e allegation s mad e in Ackers’s li ve p le adin g. Now here does Ack ers a ll eg e facts that w oul d s uppor t t he tr ial co urt’ s fact ual findi ng s t hat t he LPD off ic ers w ere ac ti ng w it hin the sc ope of thei r off ic ial duti es dur ing the inv est ig ati on of the prese nt m atte r. Further, Ackers ma kes no allegation th at th e re a s on th at th e of f icers became inv olv ed i n thi s mat ter w as becau se they re cei v ed a “req uestto keep the p eace. ” Conse quently, w e see no sup port in th e record be fore us for eith e r o f t h e trial court’s f indings of

fact. Furthe r, w e no te th at th e trial court’s f indings go to the me rits of Ackers’s cl aims and are, t herefore, immater ial to a rul ing on a plea to the juri sdi cti on. Bl and I ndep. Sch. D is t., 34 S .W .3d a t 554
. As to t he tr ial co urt’ s c oncl usi ons of law , eac h i s s ubj ectto de n ovo rev iew bythis court. Mayhew , 964 S .W .2d at 928 . As addre ssed in regard to Acke rs’s first issue, Acke rs maybr ing ce rt ain dec larator y j udg ment ac ti ons ag ain st a g ov er nmental enti ty w it hout ex press l eg is lat ive consent or st atuto ry

w aiv er of immuni ty
. Nue ces C ounty , 97 S.W .3d at 21 7- 18. Beca use Ack ers p led a c lai m for dec larator y judg ment t hat w e c onst ru e as not r eq ue s ti ng mo ne ta r

y da ma g es , th e C i ty i s no t i mmu ne from th e s ui t an d th e tr ial court’s dism issal w as in error. 312 Con cl usi on For the foreg oin g reason s, w e rev erse the t ri al cour t’ s j udgm ent a nd remand for further proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion
.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice