### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00105-CV Hays County, Texa s, Appel lant
v. Hays County Water Pl anning Partners hip, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAYS COUNTY, 274T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 2000-0688, H ONORABLE DON B. MORGAN, JUDG E PRESIDING
Appe llantHa ys C o un t y br ing s t his i nterl ocutory appe al f rom a di stri ct courtde ci si

on denying its mo t ion t o d ismi ss and mot ion fo r su mmary judgment in a case in volv in g the Texas Open Meetin gs Ac t. SeeTex. Gov’t Code Ann . §§ 551.001- .14 6 ( W es t 19 94 & S up p. 20 02 )
. Ha ys Cou nty rai se s f our iss ue s on appeal : whether

the tr ial cour t err ed by

(1) fail in g to dism iss the case f orwant of j urisdi

ction; (2) f

ai li ng t o grant its motion f

or summ ary j udgme

nt; (3) fai li ng to str ike Ha ys Cou nty Water P lann ing Partner ship’s

summary judg ment ev ide nc e; an d ( 4) failing t o aw ar d it atto rney ’s f

ees. We wi

ll aff irm the dis trict court ’s rul

in g. FACTUAL AND P

ROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In t his case , w e r evisit t he co nt ro ve r sy s ur r o un di ng de ve lo pm en t in H ays Co un t y. T his is the second tim

e the sam e parties h

ave appeared b efore thi s Court in a Texas Open Meetin gs1 Hay

s Coun ty W ater Pl an ni ng P artne rsh i p (HC WPP ) see

ks de claratory

rel i ef und er the Uni f orm Decl aratory Judg men ts Ac t. SeeTex. Ci

v. Prac. & Rem . Code An n. §§ 37.001-.011 (West 1997 & Supp. 2 002). 2 Ac t cas e. In Hays C

ounty W ater P lanning P artner ship v. Ha

ys Cou nty , we he ld

t ha t t he Ha ys Cou n ty Wa t er P lan nin g P ar t ne r sh ip , a p o lit ica l an d e nvi r o nme nt al g r o up o f H ays County taxpayers, had sta n di n g to s ue th e c oun ty under t he T exas Ope n Mee t ings Act (“Act ”) ; we a lso he ld t hat t he
cou n ty h ad v i ol ate d th

e A ct b y posti n g i n suf f i ci en t n oti ce of a c oun ty commi ssioner’s court me eting. 41 S.W .3d 174 , 176-7 8 (Tex . App.—A usti n 20 01, pet. deni ed) ( “Hays County I ”). The present controversy b egan on May 16 , 2000, wh

en th e H ay

s C oun ty Commi ssioner’s Court me t and voted to approve a transportat ion pl an f or submi ssion to the Capi

tal Area Metropol

i tan Pl an ni ng Organ

ization (“ CA

MPO” ). Th e plan cont ained the co unty’s
r ec o mmend at io ns fo r fu t ur e r oa dwa ys within its bor der s. T he Ha ys Co unt y Wate r P lanning Pa r t ne r ship (“HCW

PP”) asserts that aft er t he meet ing t he co unt y commissione rs a lter ed t he plan by
maki ng sig nific an t ch an ge s t o t wo “hig hly co nt r o ve r sia l” r o ad s, wit h t he r es ult t ha t a s ub st an t ially different pl

an wa s s ub m i tted to CAMP O t han t he o ne ado pt ed a t t he meet ing. H ays Co unt y rejo ins that an y alt er at io ns t o t he pl an we r e ma de law fu lly during the M ay 16 m eeti ng;that n o cha nge s we re
ma de to the pla

n f oll owing the meet ing; and that af ter the m

eeti ng a si ngl e com m i ssi oner, Comm is si oner Burnett, deli

vered the m

ap to CAMPO. On May 25, HCWPP sued Hay

s County al

le gin g that the c omm

i ssi oners had v iolated t he Open Meeti ngs Act by pri vatel y al terin g the pl an. HCWPP s e ek s in

ju nc t ive , de cla r at o r y, 1 and3

ma ndam us r elie f, as we ll a s a t t or ney’s fees and p os t -jud gment inter est . O n May 30 , t he
comm is si oner’s court met again and f ormal ly approved the pla

n sub mi tt ed to CAMPO. In it s answer, Hay

s County s peci al ly excepted to HCWPP’s origi nal pet itio n, c laimi

ng that i t had f ail ed to i den

tif y an y l egal auth ority f or its clai m s. The t r ial c o ur t ap pa r en t ly did no t rule
on the sp ec i al exce ptions . HC WPP f

i l ed a s ec ond am en de d pe ti ti on in w hic h it did no t su bst an t ive ly
am end i ts open meeti

ngscl ai m , but a dde d c au se s of

ac ti on f or vi ol ati ons of arti cl e V , se cti on 1 8 of t he Texas Constitution and s ection 81.006 of the T exas L ocal Go ver nment C od e. In it s sec ond
am en de d p eti ti on , H CW

PP cl ai m s th at: Defend ant violated the Texas Open Meetin gs A ct w he n i t al tere d the Tran sp ortati

on Plan from the form that it [sic] was a pproved and v ot ed on i

n publ ic on May 16, 20 00 . A n y ch an ge s m ade to the Transportat ion Pl an were n ot ma de i n publ ic , were not ma de wi th proper not ice t o t he pu blic; and/o r w er e no t wit h t he pu blic b ein g a ble to observe how its government was conduct in g publi c busi ness. Af ter HCWPP fi

le d its sec ond am

ended peti

tion, Hays County f

il ed a moti on to di sm i ss f or l ac k of subj ect matte r j urisd

i cti on tog ether w

i th a moti on f or sum mary j udgm en t. In i ts m otion f or sum mary j udgm en t, Hay s County cl

ai me d that it was entitled to judgme nt as a m atter of l aw be cause

HCW PP had not p l ea de d a

vi ol ati on of t he Op en Me et ings Act and that, in an y e ven t, t he com mi ssioners had val ida ted t he plan a t t he May

30 me eting. HCW

PP fi le d a response to Hays C ounty’s m ot ion a nd a
cross m otion f or parti al sum mary judgm ent on the i ssueof

l i ab i l i ty . Ha y s C oun ty the n f i l ed a m oti on to strike HCW

PP’s sum ma ry j udg me nt ev i den

ce a l ong wi th a s uppl em en tal motion f or sum mary judg ment and oppo siti on to HCWPP’s cross moti on f or p ar ti al su m mar y j udgm en t. The tria l court issued an ord er denyi

ng all the m

ot ions, from wh

ich only Hays County appeal s.2 “A

pe rs on m ay ap pe al f rom an i nterlocutory order of

a di stri ct c ourt, c oun

ty cou rt at l aw , or cou n ty cou rt th at: . . . gr an

ts o r d en i es a p l ea to t he jur isdict ion by

a gov ern men tal uni t as tha t term is de fine d in Se ct io n 1 01
. 00 1. ” T ex . Civ . Prac . & R em. Co de Ann. § 51.014(a)(8) (West Supp. 2002)
. 3 Bec aus e Ha ys Co unt y fail s t o d emons t ra t e whyHCWPP’s status ch an ge d w it h r eg ar d t o t his is sue si nc e our previ

ous de ci sion, we

conc l ude i t has stan di ng. See Hay

s Count yWate r Planning P’ship v . Hays C ounty , 41 S.W .3d 174 , 176-7 8 (Tex . App.—A usti n 20 01, pet. deni ed). 4 DISCUSSI ON Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Because th e tr

i al cou rt’ s den i al of Ha y s C oun ty ’s pl ea to the j urisd i cti on a nd moti on fo rsu mmar y jud gme nt wa s no t a fin al ju dg men t , Ha ys C o un t y’s ap pe al is int er lo cu t o r y. 2 See Te x. Civ. Prac. & Rem . Code An n. § 51.014(a)(5),(8) (West 1999 &Su pp. 200 2) . T he st at ut e au t hor izing i nterl ocutory appe al s i s stri

ctl y construed b eca

use i t is an ex cepti on to the ge

neral ru l e th at o nly a fi nal jud gme nt is appe alab l e. See Texas Dep’t of Transp. v. Sunset Valley , 8 S. W.3 d 72 7, 730 (T ex. Ap p. —A us t in

1999, n o pet.). To re view a p lea t o t he jur isdict ion cha llenginga court’s subj ect matter j urisd i cti on under secti on 51.014(a)(8), we do not exami ne the m erits of the ca se. See id . at 730. Instead, we gr an t t he ple a t o t he jur isd ict io n if t he r e is an inc ur ab le j urisd i cti ona l de f ec t ap pa ren t f rom the f ac e of t he ple ad ing s, ev en if

al l the a l l egati ons i n the pl ai nti f f ’spl eadi ngs are tak en as true . Id. at 729. In

its f irst i ssue, Hay

s County cl

ai ms the trial court erredby

f ai l i ng to gra nt i ts m oti on to dis mi ss ba sed on la ck of sub je ct matt er jurisd ictio n, c iting five gr ou nds: so ver eign and legislat ive immu nit y; l ac k of

j us ti ci ab l e c au se ; l

ac k of standi ng; 3 and failur e t o st at e a cla im for injunc t ive r elief. We will addr ess e ach g ro und in t ur n.4 “A

n i nterested person, in

cl udin g a m em ber of the news

me dia , may

bri ng an action b y m andam us orinjunct ion t o s t op , p re vent , o r r ever se a violat ion o r t hre at ened violat ion o f this cha pt er by members o f a go ver nmenta l bod y.” T ex. Go v’t Co de Ann. § 551.1 42 (W est 199 4). 5 Sovere ign Immunity The Open Mee

tings Act ex pr es sl y wai v es sov er ei gn i m m un i ty f or v i ol ati on s of th e act. SeeTex . Gov’ t Code A nn . § 551.1 42 (W

est 199 4). 4 Hay s County does no t ur ge a different i nte rpreta ti on o f t his s ec t io n, bu t inst ea d a r gu es t ha t HC WP P is atte m pti n g to use the Open M eetin gs Act im properly to “ch al le nge the acti ons of an

in div idua l m em ber of a comm is si oners court who has al le gedl y taken action that i s i

nconsistent with that

whi ch [si c] comm is soners court has do ne. The [Open Mee t ings Act ] d oe s no t waive im mun ity b y creating a cause of action or ot herwise per mitt ing a legal ch al l enge of thi s ty pe.” The Open Meetin gs A ct r eq ui re s th at a l l meeti n gsof gov er n men tal b odi es b e op en to the publi c unl ess ot herwise

ex pres sl y auth oriz ed b

y l aw. See id . a t § 55 1. 002 . T he pu rp os e o f the Open Meetin gs Act i s “to safegua

rd the publ

ic ’s i nterest in knowin g the workings

of i ts governm

ental bodi es.” City of San Antonio v. Fourth Co ur t o f A ppeals , 820 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Tex. 1991) ; Stockdal e v. Meno , 867 S. W. 2d 12 3, 12 5 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in 1993, writ deni

ed). Because the Act ap plie s to m e et ings o f a go ver nmenta l bod y, HCWP P’s claim must s t at e so me violat ion o f the pub l i c’s ri ght to attend

or view a g overn

men tal body ’sdel

i berati ons. SeeTex . Gov’ t Code A nn . § 551.002. The gi st of Ha ys C o un t y’s ar gu men t is th at H CW PP h as on l y com pl ai n ed of th e acts of a si ngl e com m i ssi oner, i.e. , Comm

is si oner Burnett’s act of deli veri ng the al le gedl y a ltered pl an to CAMPO, and that this

by itsel f is i nsuf fi ci ent to st ate a clai

m un de r t he Op en Me et ings Act . We6

dis agree wit h t his ch

ara cte ri za ti on of HCW PP’s pleadi

ngs. In b ot h i

ts origin al and second a

me nded pet itio n, HCWP P allege d t hat t he count y , no t a single c ommissione r, made c hange s t o t he Tra ns porta ti on Pl an: “ Defendant

violated the Texas Open Mee tings A ct w

hen it altered the Transportation Plan fro m the f orm it [sic] was approved and v ot ed on i n publ ic on May 16, 2000. Any ch an ge s m ade to th e T ra n sp orta ti on Pl an . . . were n ot m ad e w i thth e p ub l i c b ei n g a b l e to obs er ve how its government wascond ucti ng p ubl i c busi ne ss. As su

ch , defendant

vi olated
. . . Te x. Gov’t Code § 551.0 02, § 55 1.021, § 55 1. 02 2, 55 1. 04 1, § 5 51
. 04 3, an d/ o r§ 5 51
. 10 2. ” ( E mph as is adde d.) I n a dd it io n, t he pe t it io n e xp r es sly id en t ifies t he leg al a ut ho r it y fo rHC WP P’ s c laims and type of re l i ef sou gh t. Rul es 45 and 47 of the Tex as R ul es of Ci vi l Procedu re govern p l eadi

ngs . See Te x. R. Ci v. P. 45, 47 . R ule 45 (b ) s t at es t hat a p lea ding sha ll “co nsis t o f a stat emen t in plain and concise la nguageof t he plaint iff

’s ca use of a ct ion .
. . . T hat an allega t ion be e vident ia r y or be of

le gal
con cl us i on shal l n ot be ground f

or o bj ection wh

en f ai r notice to t he oppo ne nt is given by the allegat ions as a whole . . . .” Id . R. 45(b). Rule 47 requi res that a p l eadi

ng c ontai n “ a sh ort st at ement of t he ca us e o f ac t io n su fficie nt t o giv e fa ir n o t ice o f t he cla im invo lve d” fo ra c laim f or re lief and “a demand for judg ment f

or al l th e oth er re l i ef to wh i ch th e p ar ty deem s hi ms el f en titled.” Id . R. 47 (a), (c). Fair notice un

der the rules

is met if an o ppo sing at t or ney can a sce rt ain the nat ur e and t he ba sic i ss ue s of the con trov ers y f rom the pleadin

gs. See Rodriguez v. Yenaw ine , 556 S.W.2d 410, 414 (T ex. Civ. App. —Aust in 1977, no w rit) ; see also Piaz za v. City of

Granger , 909 S.W.2d 529, 532 (T ex. App.—Austin 1995, n o writ.). We conclude

that HCWPP’s second am ended peti tion provi des5 Because j urisd i cti on i s evi de nt f rom the plea di ng s, we d o not

consider ot her evi

dence. Se e Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. B lue , 34 S.W .3d 547 , 555 (Tex. 20 00).
6 “A contr oversy

is jus ticiabl e onl y i f there ex is ts a real an

d substantial

contro versy

in volv in g a genu ineconfl

ict o f tan gib le in terests and not merel

y a theoret ic al

dis pute.” City of Austin v. L.S. Ranch , Ltd . 970 S.W .2d 750 , 752 (Tex. A pp.—A usti n 19 98, n o pet.).
7 911 S.W.2 d 118, 1 28 (Tex . App.—San An toni o 1995), w

rit denied, 940 S. W.2 d 59 3 ( Te x. 1996) (per curi

um ). 7 fair notice to Ha y s C ou n

ty of i ts c l ai m un der the Open

Me eti n gsA ct a n d th er ef orei s s uf f i ci en t to
o ve r co me H ays Co un t y’s cla im o f so ve r eig n immu nit y. 5
No Justicia ble Cause

In an argum ent si mi la r to that above, Hay s County cl ai ms that HC WP P fa ils to s tate a j ustici abl e cause b ecause i

t do es not iden

tif y a ny action taken

i n v i ol ati on of th e A ct. 6 Howev

er, th e pet itio n doe s i

den ti f y an ac ti on tak en i n v i ol ati on of th e A ct, n am el y th at th e c oun ty
com m i ssi oners un l aw f ul l y mad e c ha

ng esto the

tran sp ortati on p l an outs i deof

a publ ic m eetin

g. Moreov er, as the coun

ty re cogn izes , Hays County I

held t hat a meet ing violat ing t he noticepr ovisio ns of t he Act in which no action was taken di d not pr ev en t HC WP P fr o m se ek ing r elief. See Hays County I , 41 S.W.3d at 176-78. In re ality, H ays Co unt y’s arg ument t ha t no ac t io n w as t ak en in violation of

the Act goes to th e m

eri ts of HC WPP’ s c l ai

m s a nd thu s is n ot t he pr o pe rsu bje ct o f an int er lo cu t o r y ap pe al. SeeSunset Valley , 8 S. W.3 d at 730 . H ays Co unt y’s reliance on United Independent School District
v. Gonzalez 7

, and the other ca ses

i t ci tes i n th i s se cti on of

i ts bri ef i s m i spl ace d. Each of thes e cases
save one, City

of San Antonio v. A guilar , pro ceeded to summ ary j udgment or a t rial

on the merits. In Aguilar , whi ch i

nvol ved a mo t io n t o dis miss an ap pe al, t he co ur t did not hold that no action ha d8

been tak en , but that the c i

ty ’s de ci si on to p urs uean ap pe al wa s a n i nte rn al ad m i ni stra ti ve de ci si on not subj ect to the Open Mee

tings Act. See City of San Antonio v. A guilar , 6 70 S .W. 2d 6 81, 686 (T ex. App.—San

An to nio 19 84 , wr it dis m’d )
. Re ga r dle ss , de t er mining wh et he ran ac t io n w as t ak en in vi ol ati on of th e A ct is a qu es ti on to b e dec i de d a

t a trial on the me

rits; theref

ore we reject t hi s ground. See Sunset Valley, 8 S.W.3d at 730. Legislativ

e Immunity Ha y s C oun ty al so c l ai m s H CW PP’ s s ui t sh oul d b e di sm i ss ed f or l ac k of j urisd i cti on
on t he ba sis of

l eg i sl ati ve i m m un i ty . The p urp ose

of l eg i sl ati ve i m m un i ty i s to p rev

en t sui ts f rom inter fering wi

th the l egi slati ve proces s. See Supreme

Ct. of Va. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., I nc. , 446 U .S. 719, 7 31 (19 80). “A privat e civil act ion, whether for an inj unction or damages, creat es a di stra cti on and fo rc es [ legislat or s] t o d ivert t heir t ime, ene rg y, and at t ent ion fro m their legislat ive tasks to defen

d the li tigation.” Id. at 733 (q uo t ing Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s F und , 421 U.S. 491, 503 (1 975 )) . T he T exas Su pr eme Co ur t has st at ed “[ w] hen o ffi cials ar e t hre at ene d wi

th personal l i ab i l i ty for acts taken pursuant to t hei r offi ci al duties, they

ma y w el l b e i nduced to act wi

th
an exce ss of caution or ot herwi se to skew their deci si ons i n way s that re su

l t i n l es s th an f ul l f i de l i ty to the obj ec ti ve an d i nd ep en de nt c ri teri a that ou gh

t to g uide t he ir conduct.” In re Perry , 4 5 T ex. Sup. Ct. J. 48, 50, 2001 Tex. LEXIS at *96 (Oct . 22, 2001) (quot in g Forr ester v. White , 484 U.S. 219, 22 3 (199 8)).

The le gis la

tive i mm uni ty doctrine ex

tends bey ond federal

and state legi

sl ator s to o ther ind ivid ua ls perf

ormi ng l egi tim ate legi slati

ve f unc tion s. Id. at 50. A fu nc t io n is l eg i sl ati v e i f i t “ re f l ec ts
a dis cretionary, poli cy

ma kin g deci si on of general

appl ic ation, rather than

an i nd i vi dua l ize d de ci si

on9

based upon particul ar facts.” Id . Exam ple s of l egi sl ative fun ctions i ncl ude “a m ay or’s veto o f an ordinan ce pas sed by a ci ty c ounc i l , the exa

m i na tion of a wi tnes s b ef ore a legislat ive co mmi

t t ee, and vot ingon co nt ro ver t ed o rd inances a fte r c ond uct ing meet ings wit h par t isans on o ne side of a zo ning controv ersy.” Camacho v. Samaniego , 95 4 S
. W. 2d 81 1, 82 3 ( T ex . Ap p. —E l Pa so 19 97 , wr it den i ed). In

the presen

t cas e, we d o no t find i

t necess ary to decide whet her Hays Count y’s actions concerning the transpor tat ion plan are legi slati ve because

we concl ude that Ha ys C o un t y is not entitled to legi sl ative

im mun ity from an Open Meetin gs Act clai

m. The Open Mee

tings Act pr otects t he publi

c’s righ t t o be inf ormed concerning the transactions of publi c busi ness. See Acker
v. Texa s W ater Comm ’n , 790 S.W .2d 299 , 300 (Tex. 19 90). “The e xecuti ve an d legislative decisions of our go ver nmenta l officials as we ll as the unde rlying re aso ning must be disc uss ed o penly befor e t he pub l i c rather tha

n s ecretly behi nd c l osed d

oors.” Id . (Em

pha si s ad ded.) Th e g oal

of th e A ct is to “provide open

ne ss a t eve ry stage of a governm

ental body’ s del

ib erations.” City of San Antonio, 820 S.W.2d at 765 ; Stoc

kdal e, 867 S.W.2d at 125. In contrast , legisl ative im mun ity shi el ds i ndi vi dual l egi slators from

li tigation ch

al le ngi ng the substance

o f a deci si on, not t he process by whi ch i t was
ma de. See, e.g ., I

n re Perry , 45 T ex . S up . Ct
. J. 48
. T o ho ld t ha t Ha ys County i s protect ed by l eg i slati ve im mun ity would potential

ly shi el d al l gove

rnm ental bodie s f rom clai ms under the Ope n Meetin gs A ct i n di re ct op pos i ti on to the l eg i sl atu re’ s i nte nt of f osteri ng ope n gov ern men t. See Acker , 790 S.W.2d

at 300 ; City of San Anton io , 820 S.W.2d at 765; Stockdale, 867 S.W.2d at 125. Such a h ol di n g w oul d e f f ec ti v el y un derm i n e th e A ct.10

Failure to State a Claim for Injunctive Relief

Ad di t io na lly, Ha

y s C oun ty con ten dstha t HC WPP h

asf ai l ed to es tab l i sh

j urisd i cti on f ori ts c l ai m f orinjunct ive relief beca use t he contro versy is not yet ripe, thus the court is b ei ng asked to re nder an ad visor y opinio n. See Camarenav. Texas Employment Comm’n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (T ex. 198 8) (va

ca ti ng an i njun cti on because i t was g ran ted on the b asis of

a “ hy potheti cal si tuati on”). Ha ys County argues that

in order t o obt ai

n i nj unctiv e reli ef HCWPP m

ust provide evidenc e t hat t he
cou n ty is li kely to co mmi

t violat ions o f the Ope n Mee t ings Act in the future base d on an establ is hed pattern of p ast v

i ola tion s. See Harr

is C ounty Emer genc y Ser v. Dis t. No. 1 v. Harri s Count y Emergency Corps , 999 S.W .2d 163 , 170 (Tex. A pp.—H ouston [14th Dist.] 1998 , no pet.). Agai n, we concl

ude that Hays C ounty i s attemptin g to argue the me

rits of thi s case, whi ch i s n ot appropriate i

n a n i nterl ocutory appe al
. See Sunset Valley , 8 S.W.3dat 730. Whether HCW PP ha s d emo nst r at ed t he t ype o f ha r m su fficie nt t o qu alify fo rinju nc t ive r eli ef i s a f ac tual i nqu i ry for t he trial

court . We note that bot h cases cit ed by Ha ys Co unt y invo lved t he r evie w o f a grant of a t empo ra ry injunct ion by t he t rial co ur t . T he r eco rd in the p re sent ca se , h owe ve r, d oesnot i n di ca te th at th er e h as b een a r ul i n g on e w ay or th e other on HC WPP ’s r equ est for an injunct ion. Ha ys Co unt y is really argu ing t hat HCWP P’s claim for injunct ive reli ef s hould b e deni

ed, not t hat t he court l acks

j uri sdi cti on. We rej ect this groun d an d ove rrule Hay s Coun ty’ s f i rst i ssue. Motion for

Summary Judgment In it s s ec o nd iss ue , Ha ys C o un t y ap pe als t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de nia l o f i ts m oti on f or
sum mary j udg men t on th e b as i s th

at H CW PP h as n ot pl eade d a cts

th at c on sti

tute a violat ion o f the Open Mee t ings Act , o r in t he alt er nat ive, t hat t he co mmis si oners’ court vali dated the chal

le nged11

ac ti on at the May 30th m

eetin g. Howev er , be cause of the narro w scope o f i nterlocut ory appeals, nei ther of t hese co nt ent i ons

may serv e a s th

e b as i s f or a prope

r i nte rlocu tory ap pe al of a d en i al of
sum mary j udgm en t. SeeTex . Ci

v. Prac. &

Rem . Cod

e An n. § 51.014(a)(5) (West 1997 & Supp. 200 2); City of

Houston v. Kilburn , 849 S.W .2d 810 , 812 (Tex. 19 93). An in terlocuto ry appea

l of a deni al of sum ma ry j ud gm en t m us t be b ased on an
as serti on o f immun it y o f an ind ivid ua l wh o is anoff ic er or employee of the

state o r a poli

tical sub di vision of the state. SeeTe x. C iv. Pr ac. & Rem. Co de Ann. § 51
. 01 4( a) ( 5)
. T o pr ev ail, Ha ys Cou n ty must base its c laim on t he qua l i f i ed i m m un i ty of a gov ern men tal off i ci al or em pl oye e. See City of Beverly Hills v. Guevara , 90 4 S. W.2d 655 , 65 6 (T ex. 1 995 ); Kilburn , 849 S.W.2d at 812. Ha y s C oun ty f ai l ed to rai se a c l ai m of qu al i f i ed i m m un i ty i n i ts appe al of the den

i al of i ts sum mary judg ment motion
. See Sunset Valley , 8 S.W.3d at 730 (st at ing t hat st at ut e au t hor izing i nterl ocutory appeals m ust be s t ric t ly co nst ru ed ). Ha ys Co unt y did ra ise t he c laim o f legislativeimmunit y in it s appeal of the deni

al of i ts plea to the juri sdi ction. In revi ewi ng that pl ea , we de t er mine d t ha t Ha ys Cou n ty is not entitled to legi

sl ative im mun ity with regard to vi olations of the O penMe eti

n gsA ct. Theref ore, even assum in g that Ha y s C oun ty ha d pr ope rl y rai se d leg i sl ati ve i m m un i ty i n i ts a ppe al of t he deni al of sum ma ry j udgme nt and that le gis la

tive i mm uni ty m ay be ass erted as a type of qua li fi ed i m m un i ty under section 51.014(a)(5), we reach the sam e concl usi on. Hays

County’s second i ssue is overruled.
Ot he r C la ims Ha ys Co unt y also a ssigns erro r t o t he tr ial cou rt ’s ruli

ng den yi ng i ts motion to strike
sum mary judg ment e vi de n ce an d i ts req ue st f or attor ne y ’s f ee s. B ec au se

of the na rrow sc opeof12

i nterl ocutory appe al s, we

do not con sider th ese

clai m s. SeeT ex . Civ. Pr ac . & R em. § 51.014 (a)(5); Lopez v. Trevino , 2 S .W .3d

472 , 47 3 (T ex . A

pp. —Sa n A nton i o, pet . dism’d

w.o.j.). Therefore, we overrule Hay

s County’ s thi

rd and f ourt h i ssue. CONCLU SION H aving overruled al

l f our issues rais ed i n thi s i nterlocutory appeal , we af f i rm th e di str i ct c our t’s den i al of Ha y s C oun ty ’s moti on to dism i ss an d i ts m oti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t.

David Pur

yea r, Justice Be fore C hie f Justi ce Ab ou ssie , Just ice s Ye akel an d Pu ryear Af fi rmed Fil ed: Ja

nuar y 17, 2002 Publish