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

NO. 03-01-00189-CV

Hel en Gal

lag her, Barn ey Knigh t and Ja mes Miller , Appel

lan ts

v. David Young, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAYS COUNTY, 207T H JUDICIAL DIST RICT NO. 97-0765, HO NORABLE CHARL ES R. RAMSAY, JUDG E PRESIDING

A pp el l an ts Hel en G al la

gher, Barney

Kn igh t, and Jam

es Mi ll er appeal the dis trict
co ur t ’s de nial of t heir p lea t o t he jur isdict ion. We will dismiss t he ap pea l for w ant of jur isdict ion.

Appel le e Davi d Young was em

ploy ed by the Ci ty of K yl e as the ci ty’s c hief of police. In 1997, the city

counci l v ot ed to termi nate hi s em

ploy me nt. Young then sued

t he cit y, Knight , w ho is the ci ty ’s attorn ey , an d G al l aghe r an d M i l l er, wh

o are two m em be rs of th e c i ty co uncil, u nder t he TexasWh is tlebl ower Act and the Texas Ope n Meetin gs A ct. SeeTe x. Gov’t Code Ann . §§554.002- .010 & 55 1.001- .146 (W est 19 94 & Su pp. 200 1) . Y ou ng allege d t hat t he cit y had violat ed t he Wh is tlebl ower A ct a

nd sough t ac tua l da mag esan d l ost c om pe ns ati on f orthose violations. He also1 T he cit y wa s no t a p ar t y t o t he ple a t o t he jur isd ict io n a nd is no t a p ar t y t o t his a pp ea l.
2 In 1999, i n a n un pub l i shed opi

ni on thi s Court deci ded another

appeal ari si n g ou t of th i s l aw su i t. SeeCity of Kyle v. Young , No. 03- 99-00055-CV, 1999 Te x. A pp. LE XIS 72 32 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in Sept. 30, 199 9, p et. den

i ed ) (n ot de si gnate d f orpublicat ion) . I n t hat app eal, Gallaghe r, Knight , a nd Mi l l er, j oin ed b y the c i ty, a ppea l ed f rom th e di stri ct court’s

den i al of thei r m otion f or sum mary ju dg men t ba se d o n t he de fe ns e o f g o ve rnme nt al im mu nit y. Tha t inter locu t or y appe al was bro ught under section 51.014(a)(5), a dif feren t subsection of

the jurisdi ct io na l st at ut e t ha n t his a pp ea l. Sec ti on 51. 014 (a) (5) gi

ve s a ppe l l atecou

rts jurisd i cti on ov er a ppe al s f rom or der s t hat deny“ a m

oti on for sum ma ry j udgme nt that is based on a n asse rt ion o f im munity by an individual who is an off ic er orem pl oyeeof t he st at e o r a po litical subd ivisi on o f the st at e. ” T ex. Civ. P ra c. & Rem. Co de Ann. § 51. 014 (a) (5) (W es t Sup p. 2 001 ). W

e h el d that the a

ppe l l an ts w ere i m m une f rom You n g’ s state co n sti tuti onal claims and co nspira cy claims and r emande d his re maining caus es o f act ion t o t he di str i ct c our t. 2 so ught a de clara t or y judgment t hat t he cit y and ap pellant s individually violate d t he Open Mee tings Act and a ske d t he district cour t t o reverse act ions taken in those meetings; he di

d not seek damage s f rom app ellants for t hos e vi ola tion s. Fi nal ly , he sued Gal

la gher f or defam ation an d in tentional in fl iction of em

ot ional distress, seeking actual and ex empl ary dam ages. A pp el l an ts fi led a pl ea to the jurisdi

ction arguing that Yo ung’s pl eadings d i d n ot pr o pe r ly i n v oke th e d i str i ct cou rt’ s jurisd ictio n ove r t hem. T he dist rict co ur t denied t he plea , a nd appe l l an ts f i l ed a n oti ceof int er lo cu t o ry ap pe al. 1 Appel la nts contend thi s Court has jurisdi ction unde r s ec ti on 51. 014 (a) (8) of

the Ci vi l Practi ce& R em edi esCode, w

hi ch au thor ize s th e a ppe al of a n i nterl ocutory order t hat “gran

ts or denies a pl

ea to t he j urisdi

ction by a governm

ental un it as that term is defi ned in Section 101.001.” SeeTex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem . Code Ann . §§ 51.014(a)(8) , 101.001(3) (West Supp. 2001). We di sagree. 2

Section 101. 001 defin

es “governm

ental uni t” as follows:3

(A) t his state and all

the several

ag en ci es of gov er n men t th at c oll ec ti

v el y con sti tute t he governm

en t of thi s state , i nc l udi ng other ag en cie s bea ring d iff er ent designations, and all

depart men

ts, burea us, board s, commissions, off ices, agencies , cou ncils, and courts; (B) a pol i ti ca l su b di v i si on of th i s state , i

n cl udi n g a n y ci ty , c oun ty , s ch ool di str i ct, j un i orcol l eg e di stri ct, l eveei m prov em en t di stri ct, d rai na gedi stri ct, i rri ga ti on di str i ct, wa ter i m prov em en t distr

i ct, wa ter con trol an d i m pr ov em en t distr i ct, water contro l a

nd preservation di strict, fres hw ater su ppl y di stri ct, n av i ga ti on di stri ct, co n se

rvati on an d r ec l am ati on di str i ct, soi l con se rvati on di str i ct, co mmu nic at io n d ist r ict , pu blic he alt h d ist r ict , an d r ive rau t ho r it y; (C) an em

ergency servi ce organization; and (D) any othe r i ns ti tution, ag en

cy , or org an of govern men t the sta tus an d a uthori ty of whi ch are der ived fro m the C ons t itu t ion o f Texa s o r fro m laws pa ssed by the legislat ur e und er t he co nst itu t ion.
Id . § 101.0 01(3).

T his Court recen

tly hel d that several

in div idua l s tate o ff ic ia ls could b rin g an i nterl ocutory appeal of a deni al of a plea to the j uri sdi

cti on un der s ection 51.0 14(a)( 8). Perry v. Del Rio , No. 03-01- 00340-CV, slip o p. at 6, 20 01 T ex . Ap p. LE XI S 5 36 8, at * 9
- 10 ( T ex . Ap p. —A us t in Aug. 9, 200 1, pet . d ism’d). Ho weve r, t hos e o ffi cials wer e se ver al of t he highes t officials o f the Sta te —t he Governor, Lieutenan t Governor, and Secretary of State—and they we r e su ed ex clu sive ly in t he ir off i ci al capa ci tie s. See id., slip op . a t 3- 6. We exa mined t he sta tutes i n q ue sti on and the Texas Consti tution an d h eld t ha t t he ind ividua l o ffice r s, su ed in t he ir o fficia l ca pa cit ies alo ne , ca me w it hin t he defi ni tion of a govern

me ntal un it and c ould bri

ng an i nterl ocutory appe al
. Id . W e do not

believe appe l l an ts i n th i s ca use may av ail them sel ve s of section 51.014 (a)(8).4 We st rict ly const ru e st at ut es g iving us j uri sdi cti on ove r i nterl ocutory appe al s. Tober
v. Turner of Tex., Inc. , 6 68 S .W. 2d 831 , 835 (Te x. A pp. —A us ti n 1 984 , n o wri

t). A maj ori ty of appe l l ate co ur t s t hat have c ons ider ed t his que st ion have consi de red ap pe al s b y school em pl oyee s or o fficia ls and h

ave h el d such i ndi vi dual s ar e no t “go ver nmenta l units” as c ont emplat ed by se ct ions 51.014(a)(8) and 101.0 01. See Castleberr y Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe , 3 5 S .W. 3d 7 77, 779 -8 0 ( Te x. App.—F ort Wort h 2001, pet . dism’d w.o.j .); University of Houston v. Elthon , 9 S.W.3d351, 354 (T ex. App.—Houston [14t h Di st.] 1999, pe t. dism’d w.o .j.) ; Johnson v. Resendez , 993 S.W.2d 723, 728 (Tex . App.—Da

l l as 1 999), pe t. d ism’d w .o.j., improvidently granted , 5 2 S .W. 3d 6 89 ( Te x. 2001) ; Dallas County

Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Bolton , 990 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex. App.—Dall as 1999,
no pet .) ; but see Friona Indep. Sch. Dist. v. King , 15 S. W. 3d 65 3, 65 7 n
. 3 ( T ex . Ap p. —A mar illo 2000, n o pet.) (i ndi vi dual trustees sue d i n of f i ci al capa ci tie s coul d app eal ). Yo ung su ed ap pe llan t s fo rac t io ns co nne ct ed t o t he irpo sit io ns as cit y c ou nc i l mem bers and as c i ty a ttorney . How ever, hi

s p l eadi ng s do not

in dic ate that he sued appella nts i n thei r offi ci al capaci tiesal one. In hi s f

if th ame nded pet itio n, Y ou ng des cr ibes eac h app ellant a s “an individua l, who is a cit izen o f the State

of Tex as ”; he doe s n ot re fer t o t heir o ffi

cial cap acit ies exce pt in desc ribing their all eged mi sdeeds. A su it al

l eg i n g a sta te of f i ci al ac ted wr ongf ul l y an d w i th out l eg al au th ori ty bro ught by

one w hose ri ghts were vi ola ted b y those a cts i s n ot a sui t agai nst the state
. See Cobb v. Harrington , 190 S.W .2d 709 , 712 (Tex. 19 45).

Fur t her , in t heir p lea t o t he jur isdict ion, appella nts di stin guis hed b etween

Galla gher and Mill er, as in div idua l counci l m

em bers, and the

governm ental entity to whi ch they were mem

bers. A pp el l an ts ar gue d t hat Yo ung “d oe s no t have a pr ivate right of a ct ion ag ains t t he in div idua l5

def endan ts.” We be lieve t his ca se is d ist ing uis ha ble fr o m Del Rio and tha t appel l an ts i n th i s ca se a re not “go ver nment al u nit s”

asde f i ne d by se cti on 1 01. 001 . There f

ore, stri ctl y con stru i ng se cti on 51.014 (a)(8), we h ol d w e d o n ot have jur isdict ion o ver t his inter locu t or y appe al. We d ismi ss t he app eal for want of jur isdict ion.

Mari ly n A boussie, Chief J

ustice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Di sm i ss ed f or Wan t of Ju ri sd i cti on File d: October 25, 2001 Do No t Publis

h