### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 17
- 00102
- CV

Martha Contreras, Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 345TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- GN
- 15
- 002365 , THE HONORABLE GI SELA D. TRIANA, JUDG E PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The parties have filed a joint motion to remand this case to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services based on the Texas Su preme Court ’ s opinion in Mosley

v. Texas Hea lth & Human Services Commission , No. 17

- 0 345, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 427 (Tex. May 3, 2019 )

. T he parties represent that the jurisdiction al facts in this case ar e similar to the j urisdictional facts addressed in that case

. Except for our disposition of the tria l co urt ’ s ju dgm ent , w e grant the motion and remand t he case to the Department

.

Similar to the procedural posture of this case , Mosle y did not file a motion for rehearing before seeking ju dicial review of an agency ’ s final order after she receiv ed a letter fro m the agenc y represent ing that a motion for rehearing was not required ; the trial court denied the agency ’ s plea to the juri sdiction but affirmed its order o n the mer its ; and this Court reversed and rendered judgment grant ing the p lea t o the jurisdiction a nd dismissi ng Mosley ’ s suit

. See i d.2

at * 5

– 10 (discussing procedural history of case) ; see also generally Mosley v. Texas Health
& Human Servs. Comm ’ n , 517 S.W.3d 346, (Tex. App.

— Austin 2017), rev ’ d in part by Mosley , 2019 Tex. LEXIS 427

. Th e Texas Su pre me Court affirmed this Court ’ s holding t hat the trial court lacked subject m atter jurisdiction to con sider Mosley ’ s appe al but held that the agency violated Mos ley ’ s due

- c ourse - of

- law r igh ts because “ the n otice sent to Mosley a nd the regulation it quoted w e re so misleading as to prevent Mosley from filing the motion for rehearing that the
APA re quires. ” 2019 Tex. LEXIS 427 , at *39. “ Because ‘ th e remedy for a denial of due process is due process, ’ ” the Sup reme Court reversed this C ourt in pa rt and remande d M osley ’ s case to th e a gency t o allow her the oppo r tunity to file a motio n for rehea ring. Id. (quoting University of Tex. Med. Sch. at Hous. v . Than , 901 S.W.2d 926, 933 (Tex. 1995)).

In their motion, the parties request that this Court a ffirm the trial c ou rt ’ s judg ment in part , re verse it in part , and remand the case to the Department

. Based on the parties ’ representations , we grant the parties ’ joint motion except as to our disposition of the trial court ’ s judgment

. Because the trial court did not hav e j urisdiction over Contreras ’ s suit , we vacate the trial court ’ s judgment aff irming the agency ’ s final order. See i d. at * 39

– 40 (agreeing that “ trial court lacked jurisdiction in the fi rst place ” )

. Consistent with the relief granted in Mosley a nd as
req u es ted by the parti es, however, w e re mand the case to the Department and direct t he Department to r einstate Contreras ’ s administrative case to afford her an opportunity to seek rehearing of the order entered against her. Id

. at *40 (directing commission “ t o reinstate Mosley ’ s administ rative cas e to afford her an opportunity to seek rehearing of the order e ntered
aga inst her, thus allowing her to seek ju dicial review by the district court anew s hould the commission deny her motion for rehearing ” ).3 ________ __________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
V acated and Re manded on Joint Motion Filed: September 18, 2019