### NUM BER 13-09- 0025 3-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
DA M ON LE E W OOD , A pp ellan t,
v . COASTA L BEN D COL LE GE A ND SA ND RA GA RZA , A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom 156t h Dist rict C ou rt of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t D amon Lee W ood, pro s e , chall eng es the t ri al cour t' s o rd er g ra nti ng appel lee s C oast al Bend C oll eg e ( the C oll eg e) and Sandra Garz a's m oti on to di smi ss forD ef endan t s N or r i e D. Jackson, Ar t hurR obi nson, and H i l da Si l v as, al l em pl oy ees o ft he T exas 1 D e p a rtm e n t o f C rim i n a l J u s ti c e , w e re d i s m i s s e d w i th p re ju d i c e o n J a n u a ry 2 2 , 2 0 0 8

. T h e y a re n o t p a rti e s to th is a p p e a l.

W ood' s app el l at e br i ef l i st s t he f ol l owi ng i ssues i n i t s t abl e of cont ent s: ( 1) t he t r i al cour t er r ed i n no t 2 di sm i ssi ng t he d ef endan t s' case on i t s own m ot i on f orwant of pr osecut i on; ( 2) W ood' s due cour se of l aw and due pr ocess o fl aw const i t ut i onal ri ght s w er e vi ol at ed dur i ng t he e nt i r et y of t hi s case; ( 3) t he t r i al cour t f ai l ed to u s e g u id in g r u le s a n d p r in c ip le s in r e f u s in g to h e a r a n d /o r r u le o n W o o d 's m o tio n f o r n e w t r i a l a n d h is m ot i on t o com pel a r ul i ng o n t he m ot i on; ( 4) t he t r i al cour t act ed i n an ar bi t r ar y and capr i ci ous m annerwhen i t r ef used t o pr ov i de co pi es of t he cl er k ' s re cor d, re por t er ' s r ecor ds, and f i ndi ngs o ff act s and concl usi ons o f l a w; a n d ( 5 ) t h e V o c a t i o n Cl a s s P l a c e m e n t f o r m d o e s n o t c o n t a i n t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s r e q u i r e d t o m a ke it a b in d in g w r itt e n c o n tr a c t. T o th e e x te n t W o o d is a tt e m p tin g to a s s e r t th e s e a d d itio n a l is s u e s , w e o v e r r u le t hem because t heyar e i nadeq uat el y br i ef ed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .1 ( i) ( p r o v id in g th a t a b r ie fm u s t c o n ta in "a c l e a r a n d c o n c i s e a rg u m e n t t h a t i n c l u d e s a p p ro p ria te c i ta ti o n s to l e g a l a u th o r ity a n d t o th e a p p e l l a te rec ord " ). 2 la c k of jurisdiction based on g overnme nta l imm unity. By tw elve issues, w hich we 1
re number

and re org ani z e as four, seeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1, W ood argues thatthe trial court
er re d i n di smi ssin g h is su itbec ause: ( 1) appel lee s waiv ed th eir r ig ht t o g ov er nmental immuni ty by fail ing to ra is e i t as an aff ir mati v e defense in their or ig ina l ple adi ng s; (2 ) the Co ll e ge h a s n o im m u n it y b e c a u s e ith a s b e e n wa ive d b y st a t u t e o r b y it s a c t io n s ; (3 ) G a rza doe s n ot have imm unity becau se "loca l g overnme nta l units do n ot extend [gov ernm ent al] immuni ty to [thei r] empl oy ees" and "G arz a acted outsi de the scope of her author ity "; and ( 4) a tt or ne y

M el i s s a M i ha l i c kh ad n o "l eg al s ta nd i ng " t o rep res en t ap pe l l an ts

. W e affi r m. 2 I. B A CKGRO UND It is undi sput ed th at W ood w as an i nmate atthe Mc Con nel l Unit lo ca ted in Bee Co u n ty, T e xas , an d e n ro lle d in an au to m o ti ve tr a n sm iss io n co u rse of fe re d by th e Co lle ge th rou g h th e Tex as D ep ar tm en t of C r i mi na l J us ti c e ( TD C J ) c on ti nu i ng ed uc at i on p rog ram . On A ug ust11, 2006, W ood s ig ned a Voca ti onal C las s P lac ement fo rm r e questin g the automoti v e t ra n s mi s s i o n c o u rs e . T h e fo r m s e to u tt h a tW o o d u n d e rs t o o d " t h a tu p on enroll ment i n any

co ll eg e prog ra m, [he w oul d] be req uired to either paycosts at re g is trati onT ui t i on was appr oxi m at el y $1, 500. 00. 3 3 or reimburse the S tate for al l tui ti on, fees and t e stcosts after rele ase. " G arz a, an

3 employ ee of the Col leg e, s ig ned t he form "S . G arz a—C BC " as "C ouns elo r/ Ass ess ment Spec ial is t." T he reco rd rev eals th at W ood began th e au tom otive transm ission cou rse in the fall of 2006. The course w as sc hedul ed to end i n the sp ri ng of 2007; how ev er , s ev eral cl ass es
w ere c ancel led due to t eache r absen ces and others w ere int er ru pted due t o a "l ock -d ow n" at t he M cC onnel l uni t. M ake- up c las ses w ere offered. W ood attended tw o of the make- up cl ass es and t hen c hose to drop th e c ourse. Subs eq uentl y , W ood f il ed a ser ies of g ri ev ances w it h TDC J, compl ain ing aboutthe Col leg e's auto moti v e transmi ss ion prog ra m, s peci fical ly q uest ion ing the q ual ity of the teac hin g and the n umber of make- up c las ses offered by the Col leg e. W ood req uest ed an addi ti onal two months to compl ete the c ourse w or k o r, i n the al ter nati v e, an oppor tuni ty to take the au tom otive transm ission c ourse or anot her cou rse at no charge. TDCJ deter mined that, under it s pol icy , W ood' s a cti on i n droppi ng the course w as unex cus ed and that no furt her

acti on woul d be tak en. W ood al so filed a lawsui t ag ain st the Col leg e and Gar z a c ontendi ng , among othe r thi ng s, that the C o lle ge fail ed to offer the cor re ct number

of make- up c las ses . W ood soug ht to re cov er act ual and puni ti v e damag es in the total amount of $5 9,999. 00. The Col leg e and Gar

z a filed a mot ion to dis mis s W ood' s c lai ms for lac k o f jur is dicti on on the g ro unds that the C oll eg e w as a g ov er nmental entity immune f ro m lawsui ts suc h as the one filed by W ood and thatGar

z a, an empl oy ee of the Col leg e actin g wit h in h e r off ic ial4

capac ity , w as als o i mmune from s uit

. The tr ial co urt g ra nted the m o ti o n a n d di smi ss ed W ood' s cl aims

. W ood' s mot ion for n ew tr ial w as ov er ru led by

operati on of l aw . See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b( c)

. This appeal ens ued.

II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW "A moti on to di smi ss bas ed on a l ack of subj ectmatte r ju ri sdi cti on is the funct ion al eq uiv ale nt t o a p lea to the jur is dicti on chal len g ing the t ri al cour t' s a uthor ity

to deter mine the subj ectm atter

of a caus e of act ion ." Del Mar College Dist. v. Vela , 218 S.W .3d 8 56, 8 61 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2007, no p et.) ; see Bl and Indep. Sch. D is t. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547, 554 ( Tex . 200 0)

. "W hether a cour t has subj ect matter jur is dicti on is a q uest ion of law subj ectto de nov o rev iew ." Id . (c it in g Tex. D e p 't of Par ks & Wildli fe v . M ir anda , 133 S

. W

. 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 6 ( Te x . 2004) ; Tex. Natu ral Res. Conservat ion Comm 'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W .3d 849 , 855 (Tex. 2002 )). "Gov er nmental i mmunity protects pol it ic al subdi v is ion s o f the St ate f ro m lawsui ts for damag es. " Harris Coun ty Hosp. Dist. v. Tom ball Reg'l Hosp

. , 2 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 8 3 8 , 8 4 3 (T e x. 2009)

. The Co ll eg e i s a g o vern m e ntal uni t org ani z ed unde r secti on 130 of the Tex as Educ ati on C ode t hroug h a "J uni or C oll eg e D is tr ict" and i s a pol it ic al su b d ivisi on of the sta te. SeeT EX
. E DUC
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 130. 001- .211 (V er non 200 2) ; see als o T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 101.001 (3 )(A) & (B ) ( Ver non 2005) ( defini ng "[g ]ov er nmental uni t" as "thi s sta te and al l the s ev eral ag enci es of go v er nment t hat c oll ect iv ely co nst it ute the g ov er nment of thi s s tate" and as "a po li ti cal subdiv is ion of this state, incl udi ng any. . . junior college district").5 III . D I S CUS S I ON A . WA I VE R OF I M M U N I TY B Y F A I LI NG TO RA I SE D EFEN SE By hi s f irs t iss u e , W ood arg ues that the C oll eg e and Gar z a w aiv ed th eir

r ig ht t o g ov er nmental i mmunity because they

fail ed to rais e an immuni ty defense in thei r or ig ina l ple adi ng s. W e di sag re e. "Go v ernm ent al imm unity, like the do ctr in e o f sov ereign imm unity to w hich it is appur tenant , i nv olv e s two i ss ues: w hether the Stat e has co nsent ed to su itand w hether the S tate has acc epted li abi li ty ." Har ri s C ounty Hosp. D is t. , 283 S.W .3d at 84 3. "Immunity from su iti s j ur is dict io n al and bars s uit ; i mmunity from l iab il ity

i s n ot j ur is dicti onal and protects from j udg ments. " Id .; see Tex. D ep't of Tr ansp. v. Jo nes , 8 S

. W

. 3 d 6 3 6 , 6 3 8 (T e x. 1999) ( per

cu ri am). I mmunity

from l iab il ity , l ik e any

othe r aff ir mati v e defense c hal len g ing li abi li ty , mus t be ple aded or el se is w aiv ed becaus e it "does not af fect a cour

t' s j ur is dicti on to hear a c ase. " Jones , 8 S.W .3d at 638. "In cont ra st, i mmunity from s uitbars a n acti on ag ain st the sta te unl ess the sta te ex press ly co nsent s t o the su it ." Id

. W hen a pla int iff sues a gov ernm ent al ent ity or of f icial, he m ust af

f irmatively

dem on s t ra t e the trial court's jur is dicti on by all eg ing a v ali d w aiv er of i mmunity from su it

. Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. W hit ley, 104 S.W .3d 540 , 542 (Tex. 2003 ); Cit y of Altonv. Shary

lan d Water Suppl

y C or p. , 145 S.W .3d 673 , 678 ( T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 2004 , no pe t.). "[A] bsen t the state 's
co n se n t to sui t, a tr ial co urt l ack s s ubj ectmatte r jur is dicti on." Jo nes , 8 S

. W

. 3 d a t6 38. Impor tantl y , "[ s]u bje ct matter j ur is dicti on i s an is sue that maybe rais ed for the first ti me on appeal ; i t may

not be w aiv ed by

the par ti es. " Tex. As s'

n of Bus. v. T

ex. Ai r Con tr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440 , 445 (Tex. 1993 ).6

The moti on to di smi ss fil ed by the Col leg e and Gar z a w as based on i mmunity from sui t and l ack of s ubj ect matter jur is dicti on. Beca use an i mmunity ch all eng e i s j ur is dicti onal and can be ra is ed at any ti me, W ood' s arg ument that the Col leg e and Gar z a w a ived imm unity by

not ple adin g it in their orig inal plea dings is not persua s iv e. W e overrule W ood' s first is sue. B. WA I VE R OF I M M U N I TY B Y S TA TU TE OR ACT I ONS In hi s s econd and thi rd i ss ues, W ood g enerall y co ntends t h a t the t ri al cour t er re d in dis mis si ng hi s cas e agai nstthe Col leg e because it has no g ov er nmental i mmunity and becau se g ov er nmental i mmunity does not extend to Garz a. W ood s peci fical ly as ser ts the fo llo wing: [T]he Tr ust e e s, Board M embers a nd al l other empl oy ees of Coas tal Bend College NEVER actually had the right to [gov ernm ent al] Im mu nity beca use

. . . th e T EXA S E d u ca ti o n a l Co d e se c. 13 0 .0 0 1 list s Co a st a l Be n d Co lle ge . . . as a tw o (2) y ear Junior Com mu nity College as of 200 6 . . . and the Civ il P. &R em. C ode 101 .001( 3)

. . . sta tes that l ocal g ov er nmental uni ts do not exte nd [ g ov er nm en ta l ] Im mu ni ty to i ts em pl oy ee s . Se e D AL LA S C OU N TY CO MM UN ITYC OLLEG E DISTR IC T v . BOLTON, 990 [S.W .]2d 465 at 467, opi nio n s ect ion – thi rd ( 3rd.) parag ra ph, w hic h s tates : The defini ti on of g ov er nmental uni ts cont ain ed i n s ect ion 101. 001 ( 3) ( of the C .P.R .C .) how ev er , D OES NO T inc lud e empl oy ees or off ic ial s o f (l ocal ) g ov er nmental uni ts. Se e al so JOH NS ON v . R ESEN DE Z, 05- 98- 00798- CV , s li p op. at 8, 199 9 W L 16 101 9 (Te x . App .–Dallas, march 25, 19 99, no pe t. h.). (Emp hase s in orig inal.) W ood also argues tha t gov ernm ent al imm unity for schoo l districts, inc lud i n g t h i s j u n i o r c o l l e g e d i s t r i c t , h a s b e e n w a i v e d b y s e c t i o n 1 1

. 1 5 1 o f t he Tex as Educ ati on C ode. See T EX
. E DUC
. C OD E A NN
. § 11 .15 1 (Verno n 20 06). 1. The College Cha ll eng ing the Coll eg e's i mmunity , W ood refers us to s ect ion 130. 001 of the
e d u ca ti o n co d e , w h ich p ro vide s fo r th e cre a ti o n a n d gove rn a n ce o f p u b lic ju n i o r c o l l e ge7

dis tr icts. See id

. § 130.001 (V er non 2002)

. W ood arg ues that throug h secti on 11.151 of the e ducat ion co de i mmunity for s uch dis tr icts has been w aiv ed. See i d. § 11 .151( a)

. Sect ion 11.1 51( a) prov ide s the foll ow ing : "The tr ust ees of an i ndependen t s chool district constitu te a bo dy cor p o ra t e and in the na me of the district m ay acquire and hold
re al and personal proper ty , sue and be sued , and recei v e beq uest s a nd dona ti ons or othe r money s o r funds c oming l eg all y i nto t hei r hands ." Id. ( emphasi s added)

. Al thoug h s ect ion 11.151( a) i ncl udes the "s ue and be sued" lan g uag e, the supreme cour t has ex pla ine d tha t "[w]hen an ent ity 's org ani c s tatut e prov id e s th at t he ent ity may ' sue and be sued, ' the phrase in and of i tse lf does not mean tha t i mmunity to sui t is w aiv ed." Har

ri s C ounty Hosp. Di st. , 283 S.W .3d a t 843 ( cons tr uin g Tex as Hea lt h and Safety C ode s ect ion 281. 056,
w hic h prov ide s t hat the board of manag ers for a ho spi tal di str ict "may su e and be s ued") (ci ti n g Tooke v. City of Mexia , 197 S.W .3d 3 25, 3 37 (T ex . 200 6) ). M oreov er , w hil e the East land Court of

A ppe als "b elieve[s] tha t [s]ect ion 11. 151 (a) o f t he [e]d ucat ion [c]od e is a g eneral w aiv er

of immuni ty

from s uit ," i t al so "conc lud e[d] thatthe appl ic ati on of se cti on 11.151( a) i s l imi ted b y

the [Tex as] TortC lai ms Act [ (TTCA )] ." Midland Inde p. Sch . Dist. v. W a tley, 216 S.W .3d 3 74, 3 82 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 200 6, no pet. ). I n the presentca se, ass uming w it hout deci din g thatse cti on 11. 151( a) of the e ducat ion co de is a general w aiv er of i mmunity to sui t, w e conc lud e, as di d our si ste r cour

t i n W atley, t hat t he appl ic ati on of
secti on 11. 151( a) i s l imi ted b y the TTCA. See id .; see als o T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN . §§ 101.001 -. 109 ( Ver non 200 5 and Ver non Supp. 2009)

. Li kew is e, w e c oncl ude t hat
a g eneral w aiv er of immuni ty from s uit , i f any , i s l imi ted b y the g ov er nment c ode. See T EX
. L OC
. G OV ' T
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 2 71. 151 -.152 (Vernon 200 5).8

C ha pt er 1 01 o f t he TTC A w ai v es a g ov er nm en ta l un i t' s i mmu ni ty from s ui t for c l ai ms inv olv ing proper

ty damag e, personal inj ur y , and death under cer tain c irc u mstanc es enumerated u n d e r the s tatut e. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 101.021

. And pursuantto secti on 101. 051, sc hool di str icts and ju n io r coll eg es are ex press ly ex cl uded from the w aiv er

ex ceptas to motor

v ehi cl es. See id . § 101 .05 1 (Verno n 20 05). T his case does not i nv olv e the operati on of a moto r v ehi cl e. Therefore, under the facts of

this ca se, there i s n o w aiv er

of immuni ty

under the TTCA. In ad dit ion , i n 2005 the L eg is lat ure enacted a st atute prov idi ng a l imi ted waiv er of immuni ty for cl aims inv olv ing cont ra cts w it h loc al g ov er nmental enti ti es, inc lu d in g j uni or col leg e di str icts. See T EX
. L OC
. G OV ' T
. C OD E A NN
. § 27 1.1 51(3 )(B) (def ining, und er this subc hapter

i nv olv ing adj udi cat ion of cl aims ar is ing under w ri tten cont ra cts with lo cal gov ernm ent al ent ities, a "[l]o cal gov ernm ent al ent ity " to include a "jun ior college district"). Cha pter 271 of the Tex as Local G ov er nment C ode prov ide s t he foll ow ing w aiv er of immuni ty to sui t: A l ocal g ov er nmental enti ty thati s a uthor iz ed by

st atu te o r th e c onst it uti on to en ter into a contractand thatente rs into a contra ct subje ct to this subc hapter

w aiv es sov ereig n i mmunity to sui t for

the pur pose of adjud ic ati ng a claim for breach of

the con tract, subject to th e term s and cond itions of this subch apt er. Id . § 271 .15 2. A "[c] o ntractsubjectto this sub chap ter" is def ined as "a wr itten contract sta ti ng the e ss e n ti a l te rms of the a g re ement for prov idi ng g oods or

se rv ic es to t he l ocal g ov er nmental enti ty

that is pro per ly

ex ecut ed on behal f of

the loc al g ov er nmental enti ty ." Id . § 271.151 (2 ). Se cti on 271 does not appl y under the fact s of thi s cas e. W ood w as not
a ve n d o r prov idi ng g oods and s er v ic es to t he C oll eg e pursuantto a w ri tten cont ra ct.9

T her e fo re , the con tract, if any, abou t w hich W ood comp lains do es no t provide the ba sis for w aiv er

of immuni ty

from s uitunder

the g ov er nment c ode. In further

su ppor t of hi s waiv er

arg ument, W ood reli es on Da lla sC o unt y Cm ty. Col leg e D is t. v. Bolton ( Bolton I ). See 990 S. W .2d 4 65, 466- 68 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1999,
n o p e t

. ). I n Bolton I , t he D all as Cou nty C ommunity

C oll eg e D is tr ict ( DC CC D) fil ed an interlocu tory app eal f rom th e trial court's den ial of its plea to th e jurisdiction arguing "only that the t ri al cour

t shoul d hav e di smi ss ed th e s uitbec ause it[w as] i mmune from l iab il ity ." Id

. a t4 6 6 , 4 6 8

. B e c a u s e D C C C D d i d n o tc h a l l e n g e t h e t r i a l c o u rt ' s d e t e r mi nati on re g ardin g i mmunity

from s uit , t he D all as Cou rtof Appeal s a ff ir med "the tr ial co urt' s o rd er deny ing D CC CD 's moti on to di smi ss for lack of subj ectmatte r jur is dicti on on that basi s." Id . at 468. The i mmunity address ed i n Bolton I

w as immuni ty

from l iab il ity , w hic h does not imp licate subject ma tter jurisdiction ; the issue in th is c a s e i s imm unity from suit, w hich does. Thus , w e c oncl ude t hat W ood' s reli ance on Bolton I i s mi spl aced. In hi s repl y

br ief, W ood dev elo ps his as ser ti on th at i mmunity

has been w aiv ed becau se "[w]hen [the College ] charg ed and col lected t he full tui ti on for an alleg edl y compl eted

. . . v ocat ion al course, its c o lle ct ion w as il leg al and unwar ra nted

. . . ." (E mphases i n or ig in a l. ) W ood reli es on Dal las C ounty Cm ty. C ollege D is t. v. Bolton ( Bolton I I ) as author ity

for t his co ntent ion

. See 185 S.W .3d 868 (Tex. 2004 ). It is w ell settl ed that one w hose ri g hts hav e been v iol ated by the unl awful acti on of a stat e of

f icial may bring a suit to rem edy or prev ent the v iolation and thatsuit is not a suit ag ain st the Stat e re q uir ing leg is lat iv e or st atuto ry

auth or iz ati on. See , e.g ., Dir. of the Dep't of Ag ric. & Env't v. Printing In dus. Ass'n , 600 S.W .2d 2 64, 2 65- 66 ( Tex . 198 0)

. In BoltonT h i s a n a l y s i s a l s o a p p l i e s to W o o d 's c l a i m s e t o u t i n s e c ti o n II I.B .2

. infr a tha t G arza' s a c t i on s w ere 4 "i l l e g a l ." 10 II , t he s upreme co urt rev iew ed a final j udg ment ent ered after a jur y tr ial in a c las s a cti on lawsui t. 185 S.W .3d at 870. The Bolton I I cl ass chal len g ed a tec hnol og y fee charg ed by the Di str ict as i ll eg al. Id

. The is sue of sov ereig n i mmunity w as not s peci fical ly

address ed by the major ity

i n Bolton I I

. Ins tead, the supreme cou rth e ld " that the Tex as Educ ati on Cod e aut hor ized t he D is tr ict t o i mpose the t echno log y fee." Id

. In ot her

w ords, the supreme co urt c oncl uded t hat n o unaut hor iz ed fee w as inv olv ed. See id

. I n t h e p re s e n tca s e , t h e C o ll e ge ch a rg e d W o o d t u it io n fo r t h e a u t o m o t ive transmi ss ion co urse. See id

. at 874- 75 (p ro v idi ng thatthe "Leg is lat ure i ntended to prov ide pub lic j unio r college districts w ith discretion to set bot h tuition a nd fees a t app ropriate lev els
as lon g as the dis tr icts compl y w it h cer tai n sta tutor

y re q uirements "). W ood poi nts us to no unautho ri z ed fee ch arg ed by the Col leg e. Ins tead, he a ss ets that , thi s c ase do es per

tai n to a [si c] il leg al col lecti on of appell ants [s ic] tuition for the secon d ha lf

of the sem este r, which was not of fered bythe ap pellee s in its entirety , thus b reach ing con tract [sic], w hich is not a GOOD FAIT H ACT W ITHI N [the Col leg e's ] scope of authority , nor w it hin its cont ra ctu al sc ope of author ity . Therefor , w aiv ing [t he C oll eg e's ] r ig ht t o i mmunity

. . . . Base d on the foregoing, w e cann ot const rue this as an illegal- fee case tha t w ould subje ct the College to suit as W ood a rg ues. T he partie s a ddre ss W ood 's claims as brea ch of contractclaims, an d w e w ill do likewi se. T hus, this argumen t also fails. 4 2. Garza Cha ll eng ing Gar

z a's immunity , W ood f irst cont ends thatGar z a, an empl oy ee of the Col leg e, i s n ot en ti tl ed to i mmunity from s uitbec ause the defini ti on of a "g ov er nmental uni t" doe s not include em ployees or of f icials of local gov ernm ent al units. W ood app ears to rely" Sove r ei gn i m m uni t y doe s not app l y t o act i ons t aken pur suant t o t he a ppl i cat i on o f a n u n c onst i t ut i onal 5 l a w , e v e n th o u g h th e a c ti o n s a re w i th i n th e s c o p e o f a p e rs o n 's o ff i c i a l c a p a c i ty a n d a re m a n d a te d b y l a w ." N ueces C ount

y v. Fer guson , 97 S. W

. 3d 2 05, 215 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 2002, no pet

. )

. W ood descr i bes G ar z a' s act i ons a s unco nst i t ut i onal ; howev er , he pr ov i des no r ecor d ci t at i ons a nd n o ci t at i ons t o sup por t i ng a u th o r ity. T h e r e f o r e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t a n y is s u e r e g a r d i n g u n c o n s tit u tio n a l a c ts h a s b e e n in a d e q u a te ly b rie fe d

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38

. 1(i ). 11 on Bolton I

for h is as ser

ted p ro posi ti on of l aw . See 9 9 0 S

. W

. 2 d at 467. In Bolton I , t he Dal las C our

t of Appea ls co ncl uded t hat b ecaus e "g ov er nmental uni ts, " as defined by
secti on 101. 001( 3) , did not inc lud e employ ees or of fici als of gov er nmental uni ts, se cti on 51. 014 (a)(8), w hich allows for the interlocu tory app eal by a gov ernm ent al unit as th e term is defined in secti on 101. 001, did not confer j ur is dicti on ov er

an int er loc utor

y appeal broug ht by members of t he Board of Tr ust ees for DC CC D w ho sued in th e ir o f f ici al capac it ies

. Id .; see T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 51.014( a) (8 ) (V er non 200 5) ; id

. § 101. 001( 3)

. The presentca se does not i n volve a n i nter loc utor y appeal

. Therefore, W ood' s a rg ument an d h is re li ance on Bolton I for t his co ntent ion are ag ain mis pla ced. Moreover, contrary to W ood 's arg um ent , "[p ]erson s sued in their of f icial ca pacity m ay raise any defense av ailable to the g overnme nta l unit, includ ing s o v ereign [or gov ernm ent al] immuni ty ." Nue ces Cou nty v. F er guson , 97 S.W .3d 2 05, 2 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 2, no pet. ). W ood al so ass erts thatGarz a is not enti tl ed to i mmunity bec ause she act ed out si de t h e sc o p e o f

h e r a u t h o ri t y " in b a d fa it h b y d e n yin g [ h im ] t h e c o rr e c tn u m b e r o f c la s s d a ys owed to him ." W ood claims that Garz a knowingl y ma de fa lse state me nts to him beca use his "class w as to be six

(6) hours a day, f iv e (5) days per w eek, tota ling one hun dere d [sic] and tw enty

( 120) day s," and he w as ow ed s ix w eeks to finis h outthe cl ass . He arg ues that Gar z a 's ac ti o n s were "u n co n st it u ti o n a l, [ ] il le gal , wron gf u l" and "beyond s tatutor y auth or ity "; 5 thus , s he i s "n ot i mmuniz ed by g ov er nmental i mmunity ."12

On A pr il 3, 2007, Gar

z a w ro te t he foll ow ing l etter to W ood: T h e m a k e -u p t im e wil l b e gi n o n A p ri l 2 3 , 2 0 0 7

. Yo u a re o n ly o we d 1 9 d a ys of make -up w hich d oes n ot equa l 6 w eeks. How ever, I hav e ad ded extra day s t o the make- up ti me. Y ou may att end t he mak e- up s ess ion or v olu ntar il y

drop th e l asttwo c las ses . This w il l be an unex cus ed drop. Gar z a w ro te t he l etter

on t he C oll eg e's st ati onar y and si g ned it as "coordin ator [of] Pr is on Prog ra ms." W ood c omplai ns of this acti on. W ood arg ues that he s ued G arz a and other C oll eg e empl oy ees in thei r ind iv idu al capac ity ; how ev er , i n hi s p eti ti on, W ood i denti fied Ga rz a as the "pr is on prog ra m Coordin ato r fo r Coastal Ben d College

. " He described a ll defend ant/respo nde nts "a t all ti mes ment ion ed herein ," as "empl oy ee's [s ic] of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ceI n s t it u t io n a l D ivi s io n , O R C o a s t a l B e n d Co ll e ge . " Hi s co m p la in t s a re o n ly o f a c t io n s G a rza took as an e mploy ee of the Col leg e, i .e., a ct io n s inv olv ing her duti es as a g ov er nmental
em ployee. T he p etition conta ins no claim s against Garza a s an individual. Moreover, W ood' s a rg uments reg ardin g Garz a acti ng outs ide the sc ope of her auth or ity

and in her ind iv idu al capac ity

are notsu ppor

ted b y the facts setout in the record. Se e Gomez v. Hous. Au th. o f El Paso , 148 S.W .3d 4 7 1 , 4 8 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2004, pet. deni ed) (fin din g no i ndi v idu al cl aim ag ain st a defendant w here the co mplai ned- of acti ons inv olv ed her duti es as a g ov er nment empl oy ee) ; Terrell v. Sisk , 1 1 1 S

. W

. 3 d 2 7 4 , 2 8 1 -8 2 (T e x. App.–Tex a r k a n a 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t

. ) ( h o l d i n g t h a ta j u d g e w a s s u e d i n h i s o ffi c i a l c a paci ty b e ca u se al l a lle gat io n s a gai n sthi m w e re of cla im e d w ro n gdo in g o r n e glige n ce b y th e ju d ge in act ion s he w as able to tak e only because of his posit ion as a pub li c s er v ant)

. Therefore, we co n c lu d e t h a tW o o d s u e d G a rza o n ly i n h e r o f f ic ia l c a p a c it y, a n d , in t h a tca p a c it y, Gar z a i s e nti tl ed to the same g ov er nmental i mmunity defense av ailabl e to the C oll eg e. See F er guson , 97 S.W .3d a t 214

.13

Base d on t h e a b ove analysis, w e con clude thatW ood has no t af f irmatively demonst ra ted t he tr ial co urt' s j ur is dicti on by al leg ing a v ali d w aiv er

of immuni ty

as to eit her the C oll eg e or

Gar z a. See Whitley, 104 S.W .3d at 542. W ood' s sec ond and thi rd i ss ues are ov er ru led

.

C. C OU N SEL ' S A UT HORI TY T O R EPRESEN T TH E C OL LE GE A ND G A RZA By hi s four th i ss ue, W ood c lai ms t hat a ttor ney M iha lic k, a n a ssoci ate w it h The Hud g ins Law

F ir m, had no l eg al sta ndi ng to re presentthe Col leg e and Gar z a. He further
arg ues that becau se Mi hal ic k h as no aut hor ity by st atute , r ule s o f c ivil p ro ce dure, t he Tex as Con sti tuti on, or per mis si on of t he tr ial cour t to re present the Col leg e and G arz a, "t he
mo ti on t o di s mi s s for

l ac ko f j ur i s di c ti on s ho ul d be h el d as N U LL &V OI D a nd t he case re manded bac k t o the tr ial co urt for further rev iew ." (E mphasi s i n or ig ina l. ) W ood prem ises his argumen t on rule 12 of the T exas Rules of

Civ il Procedu re enti tl e d " At to rn e y t o Show Aut hor ity ." See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 2. Rul e 12 prov ide s t he fo llo wing: A par

ty i n a s uit or proceed ing pendi ng i n a cour t of t his st ate may , by swor n w ri tten moti on s tati ng thathe b eli ev es the sui t or proceed ing i s b ein g prosec uted or

defended w it hout author ity , c ause the attor ney to be cit ed to appear before the cour

t and show

his author ity

to act

. . . . At t he hear ing on the mot ion , t he burden of proof shal l be u p o n the ch all eng ed attor ney to show su ff icie n t a u th or ity

to prosec ute o r defend the sui t on behal f of the oth er party. Upon his failure to show such auth ority , the courtsh a ll re f u se to p e rm itt h e a tt o rn e y t o ap p e a r in th e ca u se , a n d sh a ll st rik e th e pl e a d in gs if no p erson w ho is author iz ed to prosec ute or defend appears. The moti on m a yb e h e a r d a n d d e t e rm in e d a ta n y t im e b e fo re t h e p a rt ie s h a ve announc ed ready

for t ri al, but the tr ial sh all not be unne ces sar il y co nti nued o r de la yed fo r th e he a rin g. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 2. On M arch 6, 20 08, t he C oll e ge and Gar z a fil ed th eir

or ig ina l answ er

i denti fyi ng Ma ri on E. W il li ams, Jr . as the ir a ttor ney i n c harg e. See id . atr ule 8 ( prov idi ng thatan14

attor ney w hose signatu re first appears o n i nit ial pl eadi ng s for any par ty "sh all be t he at t o rn ey in charge, un less ano the r attorne y is specif ically

designate d the rein," "said atto rney i n ch a rg e s hall be respon sible for the su it as to such party," and "all communi cat ion s from . . . other couns el w it h re spect to a s uitsh all be s ent t o the att or ney in charg e") ; Mo ri

n v . Bo eck er , 122 S.W .3d 9 11, 9 14 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet.)

. On A pr il 10, 2008, an ag re ed moti on to su bst it ute D onal d M

. Hud g ins , of The Hud g ins L a w Fir m , as att or ney of re cord for the C oll eg e and Gar z a w as filed

. The tr ial
cour t g ra nted the a g re ed moti on on Apr il 21, 2008. Fol low ing the subs ti tuti on of cou nsel, W o o d o bje cte d tha t H udg ins w as faili ng or re fusing to appear

for h is cl ie n ts and that Mi hal ic k, an as soc iat e of the firm, w as si g nin g all respon ses and answ ers from the Col leg e and Gar z a. On S eptember

26, 2008, a designat ion of

atto rneys was f iled no tif y ing the trial co urt tha t the Co llege a nd Garza w ere subs ti tuti ng counsel and desi g nati ng "Donal d M. Hudg ins , Mel is sa A. Mi hal ic k and anyand all associat es of

Th e Hudgins Law Firm

. . . as att orne y s on the ir behalf . . . ." Mi halick's name and Hud g ins 's name, thei r bar numbers, and t he l aw f irm 's a d d ress and phone
num bers w er e l is ted und er the signatu re line. Mihalick sig ned the de signation. This designat ion clarif ied to the trial court, w ithou t a ruling bein g required, tha t Mihalick, as w ell
as Hud g ins , re present ed the Col leg e and Gar z a. See Perdu e v. Patten Corp ., 142 S. W .3d 596 , 605 (Te x . App .–A ustin 2004 , no pet.) (provi ding tha t the rules do n ot explicitly require that a moti on to su bst it ute b e g ra nted to ap pr is e a c our t of a c hang e i n a par

ty 's co unsel of reco rd). W e conclu de Mihalick sh owed su f f icient aut hority to defend t he suit on b eha lf of the C oll eg e and Gar

z a. Fur ther more, it has long been hel d that a par ty 's rig ht t o appea r and be re present ed by

co unsel of his ow n choosi ng is v alu abl e and it s u nw ar ra nted deni alH av i ng co ncl uded t hat M i hal i ck showed suff i ci ent aut hor i t y t o def end t he sui t on behal fof t he Col l ege 6 a n d G a rza , w e d e n y W o o d 's m o ti o n fo r s a n c ti o n s th a t w a s c a rr i e d w i th th e c a s e o n N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 9

. W e al s o d en y W oo d' s em erg en c y m oti on t o ha ve al l pre vi ou s l y -fi l ed pe t i t i on s for s an c t i on ag ai ns t M i ha l i c k he ard and r ul ed o n pr i ort o t he d i sposi t i on o ft hi s app eal ; t hi s m ot i on was car r i ed wi t h t he ca se on Apr i l 23, 201 0. 15 is rev ersi ble er ro r. See Vi llegas v. Car

ter , 711 S.W .2d 6 24, 6 26 ( Tex . 198 6) ; Ste fan ov v. C e i ps , 3 9 5 S

. W

. 2d 6 63, 665 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 1965 , no wr it). W ood 's fo urth issue is
ov er ru led

. 6 IV. C ONCL US I ON W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s o rd er di smi ss ing W ood' s c lai ms w it h preju dic e.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 27th day of Ma y , 201 0.