C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS ELPASO COUNTY, Ap pe lla nt,

v. HERL I NDA ALVARADO, Appellee

. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 03 51 -C V

Appea l from the 32 7th Di str ic t Co ur

t of El Paso County , Texas (TC#2006-1059)

O P I N I O N This appea l a

rises out of the trial court’s denial of a Plea to the J urisdiction and/or Motion to Di s m iss. El P aso County appea ls the trial court’s r uling. Ha ving f ound that compliance under Section 89.0041 of the L ocal Government Code is not jurisdictional, we dism iss the appea l for wa nt of jurisdiction beca

use there is no final judgme nt or otherwise appea lable interloc utory order befor e the Court. T EX .C IV .P R AC .& R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51.014 (Ve rnon 2008). F AC TS Fr om J anuar

y 2002 to April 2005 Her linda Alvara do (Alvar ado or A ppellee) worke d at the El Pa so County She ri ff

’s Of fi c e . Al va

ra do fi le d a dis c ri min a tio n c la im a nd a ft e r a fa ile d atte mpt

to mediate throug h the Equal Employ ment Opportunity

Commi ssion, the Texas W orkfor ce Commi ssion, Ci vil Ri g hts Division, i ssued Alvar ado her Notice of Right t o File a Civil Action letter on J anuar y 2, 2006. On Marc h 3, 2006, Alvara do fi l ed an empl oy ment discrimination suit underT EX .L AB .C O D E A NN . §§ 21

. 0 0 1

- 2 1

. 5 5 6 (V ernon 2 0 0 6 & Sup p . 20 0 8 ). 1

S h e riff S a m a n ie g o is no w d e c e a se d . A su it a g a ins t an o ff ic ia l i n his o ff

ic ia l ca p a c ity is the sa m e a s a su it 2 a g a ins t t h e go v e rn m e n ta l en tit y, w h ic h in this c a se is E l P a so C o u n ty. S m ith v . D a v is , 999 S. W

. 2d 409, 416 (T ex. A p p . – D al l as 19 9 9 , no p et

. ). 2 Chapter 2 1 o f t h e Tex as L abor Code ag ainst El Paso County , Texas and Sheriff Samanieg o (El 1 2 Paso County

or Appe llant) alleg ing that she was discriminated ag ainst beca use of her national orig in, subjected to a

hostile work environme nt, and suffe red retaliation. El Paso County filed its Orig inal Ans wer on May

12, 2006, and its First Amende d Orig inal Answer on November

15, 2007. On N o v e mb e r

2 0 , 2 0 0 7 , E l P a s o C o u n t y f i l e d i t s P l e a t o t h e J u r i s d i c t i o nan d / o r M o t i o nt o D i s m i s s . In that dual motion, El P aso County argued t h at Al vara do did not comply with the statutory require ments of S ection 89.0041 of t he Tex as L ocal Government Code. On Dec ember 10, 2007, the tr ia l c ourt de nie d App e lla

nt’ s mo tio ns . DI SCU SSIO N On appe al, El Paso County argues in a single issue that the trial court e rre d in not dism issing Alvara do’s discrimination suit, as require d by Section 89.0041 of t h e L o ca l Government Code, beca use Alva ra d o fa iled to provide the re quisite notice. El Paso County also argues that Section 311.034 of the Gove rnment Code make s compliance with Section 89.0041 jurisdicti o n al , and beca use Alvar ado fa iled to provide notice a s require d, the trial cour t lacks jurisdiction. T h e ex i s t en ce of the trial c ourt’s jurisdiction is a question of law that we revie w de novo

. State v. Holland , 221 S.W. 3d 63 9, 64 2 ( Te x. 20 07 ); Tex. De pt. of Parks & W

ildlif e v. M iranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). The defe ndant may proper ly challeng e the tria l court’s jurisdiction in a dil a tor y ple a to the jur isd ic tio n and the re by de fe a t the pla int if f’ s c a us e of a c tio n be fo re the me ri ts of the plaintiff’ s claims are deter mined. Bland Indep. Sc h. Dist. v. Blue , 3 4 S. W. 3 d 5 4 7 , 5 5 4 ( T e x.3

2000). Th e re qu ir e me nts of Se c tio n 8 9. 00 41 are a s f

oll ow s: (a) A person filing suit ag ainst a county or aga inst a county officia l in the official’ s capa city as a c ounty

officia l shall deliver wr itten notice to: (1) the c ounty

judge ; and (2 ) t he c ounty or dis tr ic t atto rn e y

havin g jur isd ic tio n to de fe nd the c ounty

in a c ivi l su it. (b ) T he wr itt e n n oti c e mus t be de liv e re d b y c e rt if ie d o r r e g ist e re d ma il b y

the 30 th business day

afte r suit is filed and contain: (1 ) t he sty le and c a us e numbe r o f t

he su it; (2 ) t he c ourt in whic h th e su it w a s f

ile d; (3) the da te on which the suit wa s filed; and (4) the na me of the pe rson filing suit. (c) I f a pe rson does not g ive notice as r equire d by this section, the court in which the su it i s pe nd ingsh a ll d ism iss the su it o n a mot ion fo r d ism iss a l ma de by

the c ounty or the c ounty

of fi c ia l. T EX .L OC .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 89.0041 (Ve rnon 2008). S e c t i o n3 1 1

. 0 3 4 o f

t h e T e x a s G o v e r

n m e n tC o d e t i t l e d

“ W a i v e r o f S o v e r e i g nIm m u n i t y” p ro v i d es t h e f

o l l o wi n g: I no rd er t o p re s erv e t h e l egi s l at u re ’s i n t er es t i n m an agi n g s t at e f i s ca l m at t er s t h ro u gh t h e ap p ro p ri at i o n s p ro ce s s , a s t at u t e s h al l n o t b e co n s t ru edas a w ai v er o f s o v er ei gn immunit y unless the waive r is eff

ecte d by clea r and una mbiguous languag e. In a statute, the use of “per son,” as def ined by Section 311.005 to include g overnme ntal entities, does not indica

te leg islative intent to waive sover eig n immunit y unless the context of the statute indicates no other re asonable construction. Statutory prer equisites to a suit, including the pr ovision of notice, ar e jurisdictional r e qu i r e m e n t s i na l l s u i t s a g a i n s ta g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y. T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 311.034 (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). As a thre shold matter, we must dete rmine whe ther or not this Court has jurisdiction to review the tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l of El Pa so County ’s Ple a

to t he Juri sd ic tio n a

nd /or Mo tio n to Di smi ss. Appellate c ourts have limited j urisdiction “over final j udg ments and such inter locutory order s as the leg islature dee ms appea lable.” Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. , 39 S.W .3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Ru iz4

v . R uiz , 946 S.W .2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.–El Paso 1997, no writ). I n the prese nt c ase, n o fi nal judgme nt e x ists. Thus, this Court’s jurisdiction to revie w the trial court’s r ulings on the Plea

to the J urisdiction and Motion to Dismi ss under Sec tion 89.0041 ex i sts only if those orde rs qualify

as int e rl oc uto ry

or de rs . Section 51.014 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code sets out those interlocutory order s that are appea lable. T EX .C IV .P R AC .& R EM .C ODE ANN . § 5 1

. 0 1 4 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 8 )

. E l P a s o C o u n t y, as a g overnm en t al unit, is permitted to appeal the de nial of its Plea to the J urisdiction. T EX .C IV .P R AC .& R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51.014(a) (8)( Ver non 2008). El Paso County argues that Section 311.034 of the Gove rnment Code make s Section 89.0041 of the Loc al Gover nment Code jur isd ic tio na l. We join our sist er c ourts in finding that co m p liance w ith Section 89.0041 of the L ocal Gover nment Code is not made jurisdictional by Section 311.034 of the T ex as Go v er nment Code. “[I ]t is cardina l law in Tex as t h at a co u rt construe s a statute, ‘f irst, by looking to the plain a

nd common meaningof the statute’ s words.’” Fitzgerald v. Advanc ed Spine Fix ation Systems, Inc ., 9 9 6 S

. W

. 2 d

8 6 4 , 8 6 5 -6 6 (T ex . 1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Lib e rty Mu t. In s. Co. v . G arris on Con tra c tor s , 966 S.W. 2d 48 2, 48 4 ( Te x. 19 98 )) . Wh e n th e statut e is un amb iguo us we are bo un d to us e the pla in meaning

. See Fi tzge ra ld , 996 S.W .2d at 865-66. Using the ca

rdinal law of

statutory interpre tation, we find that the pla in meaning of Section 31 1. 03 4 o f t

he Go ve rnme nt C od e a

pp lie s to pr e re qu isi tes to fi le su it n ot t o ma int a in s uit

. Specifica lly , the Gover

nment Code instructs “[s] tatutory prer equisites to a sui t , i n cl uding the p rovi sion of notice, ar e jurisdictional re quirements in all suits ag ainst a g overnme ntal entity .” T EX .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 311.034. As the Da llas Court has pointed out, a pre requisite is something5

that has to be c ompleted bef oreha nd. Dallas Count

y v. Coskey , 247 S.W .3d 753, 755 (T e x.Ap p. –D a lla s 2 00 8, pe t. d e nie d) . We a g re e that Se c tio n 3 11 .0 34 do e s n ot a pp ly to t he po st- su it notice require ments of Section 89.0041. See T EX .L OC .G OV ’ T C ODE ANN . § 8 9. 00 4; Coskey , 247 S.W .3d at 755-56. More over, le g islative intent to make Section 89.004 jurisdiction al could have been pr ovided for by

statute in light of the a

ppare nt i n co n s i s t en cy

betwee n Section 89.0014 and Se c tio n 3 11 .0 34 . I t is no t th is Co urt ’s job to i ns e rt wo rd s in a statut e wh e n th e wo rd

is a bs e nt. Laidlaw W

aste Sys. (Dallas) , Inc. v. City of W ilmer , 9 04 S.W. 2d

65 6, 65 9 ( Te x. 19 95 ). Othe r c ourt s have f ollowed the same line of re asoning set out in Coskey

. See Co u nty of Bex ar v. Bruton , 256 S

. W

. 3 d 3 4 5 , 3 4 9 ( T e x. A p p . – S an A n t o n i o 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t

. ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t S e c t i o n 8 9

. 0 0 4 1 i s n o t a ju ri sd ict io nal requ ir eme nt rat her a requ ir eme nt to main ta in s uit ); R o c c a

f or te v . J e ffe rso n Co un ty , 281 S.W .3d 230, 233 (Tex.App.–Be aumont 2009, pet. filed) ( ag ree ing w ith the Coskey Court finding Section 311.034 applies to a ctions taken befor e a suit is fil ed, and thus by its plain langua g e, it does

no t a pp ly to the po st- su it w ri tte n n oti c e re qu ir e d b y Se c tio n 8 9. 00 41 ); Ba lle

ste ro s v . Nu e c es Co un ty , No. 13-06-00405-CV, --- S.W .3d--- , 2009 WL 1349782, at *3 (Te x .App.–Corpus Christi May 14, 2009, no pet.) (op. on r eh’g ) (holding that Section 311.034 does not make Sec tion 89.0041 jurisdictional). Ba sed on our review of the pl ain l anguag e of the two statutes in question and on the

ov e ra ll c on se ns us a mon g Te xas C ourt s, we fi nd that Se c tio n 8 9. 00 41 is n ot j ur isd ic tio na l. Be cause we f

ind that Section 8 9

. 0 0 41 is not a jurisdictional require ment, the trial cour t’s order denying E l Paso County ’s Plea to the Jurisdi ction was not er ror a nd the trial cour

t’s order s are not interlocutory

order s. Absent cons t i t u t i o n al or leg islative authority to hear the denial of

the Motion to Dism iss, this Court is not permitted t o decide whether or not the trial cour t should have g ra nte d th e Mo tio n to Di smi ss.6

Our re view is alwa

y s l i mited by

the jurisdiction we ar e g iven. Article V, Section 6 of the Texas Consti tution enumerate s and limits t he scope of re view of this Court to c ases “ of which the District Courts or C ounty Courts have orig inal or appellate j urisdiction, under such restric tions and regulations as may

be pre scribed by

law.” T EX .C ON ST . ar t

. V, § 6(a ). In addition, the Texas Constit ution provides the cour ts of appea ls with “such other jurisdiction, orig inal and appe llate, as may be pre scribed by

law.” Id . Thus, an appe llat e co u rt ’s j u ri s diction must be based on (1) the g ener al constitutional g rant, subject to any regulations or restric tions im posed by the leg islature; or ( 2 ) a s p e c if

ic s tatuto r

y g r an t o f ju

r is d ic ti o n . Id .; see also Tun e v . Te x . D e p’ t of Pu b. Sa fe ty , 23 S. W. 3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 ( T e x. 2 0 0 0 )

. I n th is c a s e w e mu s t d is mi s s th e r e ma in in g a p p e a l f o r w an t of jurisdiction, because no au t h o ri t y ex ists for us to review the Motion to Dism iss based on Section 89.0041. Texas De

pt. of Cri minal Justice v . Simons , 140 S.W .3d 338, 349 (Tex. 2004).

CO NC LU SION Having found that Section 89.0041 is not jurisdictional, the trial court did not err in denying the Plea to the Jurisdi ction. Fur ther, thi s Court lacks jurisdi ction under Sec tion 51 .0 14 of the Civ il Practice and Remedie s Code to reviewthe Motion to Dismiss. We dismiss this a ppeal for want of jurisdiction.

GUADA L UPE RI VERA, J ustice J une 24, 2009 Be fore McClure, J., R ivera , J ., and B ara jas, C.J . (Ret.) Ba raja s, C.J . (Ret.), sitting by assig nment