NO. 07-07 -034 3-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C JAN UA RY

23, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ STATE OF TE X

AS A N D RAI LR OA D C OM M IS SI ON O F TE X AS , AP PE LL AN TS V. STEVEN LY NN H ALE, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 31 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RO BE RT S CO UNT Y; ST NO . 194 8; H ON ORABLE STEVEN R . EM ME RT, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ap p e llant s, Stat e of Tex as and R ail ro ad C ommis si on of Tex as (h erein after collectively t h e “Comm ission”), app eal f rom a n orde r g rantin g a tem pora ry injunctio n in fav or of Appel lee , St ev en Ly nn H ale , and a s eparate o rd er deny ing thei r ple a to the jurisdiction of

the trial court
. B y t wo issu es, th e Com mission conte nds (1) the trial court e r re d i n d e n y i n g i t s p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d ( 2 ) i n g ra n t i n g t h e t e m p o ra r y i n j u n c t i o n . W eAl l se ct i on r ef er enc es her ei n a r e r ef er enc es t o t he Tex
. Nat
. Res. Code Ann. 1 ( Ver non 20 01) un l ess ot her wi se exp r ess l yde si gna t ed.

2 dis sol v e the temporar

y i nju nct ion , rev erse the o rd er deny ing the ple a to the jur is dicti on, a nd re nder j udg ment g ra nti ng the ple a to the j ur is dicti on. Back ground Hale owns an eight thou sand (8,000 ) acre ran ch in Robe rts Cou nty. Kim Flowers ow ns a ranch direct ly

so uth o f the H ale ranch. The C ommis si on i ntends to per form an env ironmental remedia ti on proje ct to c lea n up a sal tw ater dis posal pi t atan a bandoned g as w ell s i t e o n t h e F l o w e rs ra n c h
. T h e p ro j e c tw i l l i n v o l v e t h e re mo v a l a n d re p l a c e me n tof app rox ima tely three thou sand eight h und red (3,80 0) cubic y ards of conta min ate d soil. Soil remo v al w ill require heavy -duty dum p trucks to ma ke over six h und red (600 ) trips across a road on Hal e’s proper ty . The Co mmiss ion i nformed H ale thatpursuantto it s a uthor ity g ra n te d pursuantto § 91. 113(c) of the Tex as Nat ural Res ources C ode An notat ed ( Ver non 200 1) , the 1 Com m iss ion ’s empl oy ees or ag ents w ere aut hor iz ed to ente r Hal e’s proper ty for t he purp ose o f

cond ucting the cleanu p op eratio n on the Flowe rs r a n c h. Sect ion 91 .11 3(c) state s as follows: T h e c o mmiss ion or

i ts employ ees or

ag ents , on proper

i denti ficat ion , may enter the lan d of anothe r for th e purpo se o f co nduct ing a s it e i nv est ig ati on or env ironmental as ses sment or co ntroll ing or cl eani ng up o il and g as w ast es or othe r subs tanc es or

mater ial s u nder

thi s s ect ion
.3

On J une 22, 2007, H ale fil ed th e under ly ing dec larator y j udg ment act ion co ntendi ng the Comm ission w as imp rope rly app ly ing § 91.11 3(c) to gain entry ont o his pro p e rt y , or, altern atively , the statu tory provisi on is u ncon stitutio nal be cause it v iolate s the Due Process Cla u ses of

the T exas and Unite d Sta tes Con stitutio ns. Hale sou ght a tem pora ry re strain ing order , t emporar y i nju nct ion , dec larator

y j udg ment, per manent i nju nct iv e reli ef and at torney

fees. The l ow er

co urt i ss ued an ex par te temporar

y rest ra ini ng order prev enti ng the Commi ss ion from ut il iz ing the roa d o n H a le’s ranch for th e remedia ti on proje ct. Fo llow ing a he ar ing , t he tr ial co urt i ss ued a temporar y i nju nct ion enj oin ing the Commi ss ion from ut il iz ing the ro ad on Hal e’s ra nch for the re mediat ion proje ct and den ied the C ommis si on’ s mot ion to transfer v enue an d i ts ple a to the j ur is dicti on. Discus sion At t he out set , t his C our t i s o bli g ated to de ter mine, sua sponte, is sues affect ing our jur is dicti on ov er

an appeal
. New Y

or k U nder writer s Ins. C o. v

. Sa nchez

, 799 S. W .2d 6 77, 679 ( Tex . 199 0)
. As a g eneral ru le, a j udg ment mus t be final before it can be appeal ed. Lehm a n n v. Ha r-Con C or p. 39 S .W .3d 1 91, 1 95 ( Tex2001)
. A j udg ment i s n ot fina l for pur poses of appeal unl ess i t di spos es of all par ti es and i ss ues. No r

t h E
. In dep . Sc hool Di st. v. Aldr

idg e 400 S.W .2d 893 , 895 (Tex. 1966 ). The re are, ho w ever, statuto ry ex cept ion s p er mitt ing i nter loc utor y appeal s. Se e , e .g ., Tex . C iv . Prac. & R em. C ode § 51.014( a) (8 ) (V er non Supp. 2007) (al low ing inter loc utor y appeal of deni al of a plea to the jur is dicti on by

a g ov er nmental uni t)
. Beca use thi s a ppeal pertai ns to t he deni al of a pl ea4

to th e jurisdiction f iled by the Stat e of Te x as an d the Railroad Com mission of Te x as, th is Cou rthas j ur is dicti on to hear thi s a ppeal
. § 85 .24 1 (Verno n 20 01) stat es as follows: [a]ny i nterest ed person w ho is affect ed by the cons er

v ati on l aw s o f this st ate or orders o f the c ommis si on rela ti ng to oil and gas a n d the w ast e of oi l or gas, and w ho is dissatisf ied w ith an y of these law s or orders, ma y f ile suit ag ain st the c ommis si on or it s members in a cour t of co mpetent jur is dicti on in Tra v is County to test the v alidity of the law or order. A sui tt o t e s tt h e v a l i d i t y o f a n o i l a n d g a s c o n s e r v a t i o n l a w

o r o rd e r i s re q u i re d to be f iled in a cou rt of

co mp ete nt jurisdiction in T rav is Cou nty. This statu te is jurisdictiona l, and not a v enue s tatut e. Ex par te Le e, 127 Tex . 256 , 93 S.W .2d 7 20, 7 23 ( 1936) ; Al pha Pe tr oleu mC o. v

. T er rill , 1 2 2 T ex . 257 , 59 S.W .2d 3 64, 3 67- 68 ( 1933) ; Terrell v. Com m unity Natur

al Gas C o., 117 S
. W .2d 838 , 843 (Tex.Civ .Ap p.– Dallas 193 8, w rit dis m’d)
. The jur is dicti on of a compet ent cour t in Trav is Cou nty is ex cl usi v e. S ta te v. Nov all , Inc. , 770 S. W .2d 5 89, 5 90 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1 9 8 9 , writ d eni ed) ; Hum ble Oil & Ref ini ng C o. v. Rai

lr oad C om m is si

on of T exas , 85 S. W .2d 351 , 352 (Tex.Civ .Ap p.–Aust in 1935, no w ri t)
. This is tr ue for declarator

y judg ment acti ons tes ti ng a c onser v ati on l aw

or Commi ss ion order
. Phi ll ips Pet ro leu mC o. v. Bi vi

ns , 423 S.W .2d 3 40, 3 45- 46 (Tex .C iv .App. –Amar il lo 1967, w ri t ref. n.r .e.)
. Mo re ov e r, when a cour t of co mpetent jurisdiction in T rav is County acquires jurisdiction, it may do w hat everi s n ecessa ry for a final dete rminati on of the is sues i nv olv ed, 5 6 Tex . J ur . 3d Oil and Ga s § 64 1 (200 4);5

Hum bleOi

l, 85 S.W .2d a t 352 -5 3, i ncl udi ng anc il lar y reli ef byw ay

of inj unct ion
. Lee , 93 S.W .2d a t 723
. Hal e’s peti ti on i ndi cat es he i s, or w il l be, “ affect ed” by the Commi ss ion ’s propose d action and conse rv ation law s related to the cleanu p on the F lo wers ranch. He is “d is sat is fied ” w ith the app licable con serv ation law s and Comm ission orde rs, and by his suit seeks to “test the v alidity of the law (s) or orde r(s) .” As such, Hale’s action is plainly subject to t he j ur is dicti onal st ri ctu re s o f § 85.241, and mayonl y be heard by a cour t of competent jur is dicti on i n Tra v is C ounty . Conclusion Iss ues one and tw o are s ust ain ed. B e ca u se the cour t bel ow w as w it hout jur is dicti on, t he te mpora ry i nju nct ion i s d is sol v ed, t he order of the t ri al cour

t den ying the Commi ss ion ’s pl ea to the jur is dicti on is re v ersed and j udg ment i s rendered g ra nti ng that ple a.
Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice