### H ARRIS 

### C OUNTY 

### H OSPITAL 

### D ISTRICT 

### , Appellant, v. 

### P UBLIC 

### U TILITY 

### C OMMISSION OF 

### T EXAS 

### , Appellee.



### B RIEF OF 

### A PPELLEE Public Utility Commission of Texas By its Attorneys: KEN PAXTON Attorney General of Texas CHARLES E. ROY First Assistant Attorney General JAMES E. DAVIS Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation PRISCILLA M. HUBENAK Chief, Environmental Protection Division ELIZABETH R. B. STERLING Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 19171100 elizabeth.sterling@texasattorneygeneral.gov Environmental Protection Division P.O. Box 12548, MC-066 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 512.463.2012 512.457.4616 (fax)
October 26, 2015 

# No. 03-15-00386-CV ACCEPTED 03-15-00386-CV 7537320 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/26/2015 1:23:41 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKi Ta bl e o f Co nte nts T ab l e o f C o n t e n t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I n d e xo f A u t h o r i t i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii G l o s s a ry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v S t a t e m e n to f

t h e C a s e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi State me nt Reg arding Oral Arg ume nt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi I s s u e P r e s e n t e d
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi On r emand , di d the t ri al cou rtproperly sign a ju dgmentwi th out S e ct i o n 1 5 . 0 0 3 f

e e s ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi S t a t e m e n to f

F a ct s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S u m m a ry

o f t h e Ar g u m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Ar g u m e n t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Th e tri al cou rtproperly grant ed fi nal ju dgmentwi th outcon du ct in g any he ar i n g o n t he Di st ri ct ’s Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 r equ estf orf ees .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. The D istrict ne ver re ques ted a he aring until af ter th e fi nal j u d g m e n tw a s s i g n e d
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. This Co urt’s mand ate d id not re quire the trial court to c on d u ctan y § 1 5. 00 3 f

ees h ea ri n g.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Th is Co urt ’s opin io n dec li ned the Dist ri ct ’s requ est fo r S e ct i o n 1 5 . 0 0 3 f

e e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. The D istrict faile d to as sig n the f ee s is sue as er ror in i t s f i r s ta p p e a l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 . The Di st ri ctmi si n t er pr et s F oo t n ot e 6 i n t he C ou rt ’s f i r s to p i n i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13ii 3. Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 d oe s n otau t ho ri ze paym en to f f ees t o t h e D i s t r i ctf

o ra t t o r n e y s a n d e x p e r t s i n t h i s c a s e . .. . . 15
a. Th e Distr ict’s pro ceedi ng atth e Commi ssion does no t f

itwi th in th e terms o f Sect io n 1 5 . 0 0 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 b. The Di st ri ctc an n otbe aw ar d edatt or n ey’ s f ees an d c os t s be c au se the Leg i sl at u re h as n ei t he r c re at eda re gu l at i on f

u n d n orap pr op ri at ed money fo r such a f

un d an d ha s notwaived the C o m m i s s i o n ’ s i m m u n i ty . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 P r ay e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C e r t i f i c a t e o f C o m p l i a n c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 C e r t i f i c a t e o f S e rvi c e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 APP END I C ES J u d g m e n to f

t h e T r i a l C o u r t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Man dat e from th is Co urtin DocketNo. 03-10- 00647 -CV. . . . . . . B Judgmentof thi s Cou rtin DocketNo. 03-10- 00647 -CV. . . . . . . . . . Ciii Index o f Authorities Cases Page s Fed . Sign v. T

ex. S. U niv. , 9 5 1 S . W . 2 d 4 0 1 ( T e x . 1 9 9 7 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Ford Motor Co. v. B utna ru , 1 57 S. W. 3d1 42 (T ex . A

pp .— A u st i n 2 00 5, n o pet .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Har ris Cnty . Hos

p. Dist. v. P

ub. U til. C omm’n, 201 2 W L 29 892 28 (T ex. App .—A ust in Jul y 13, 2 012 , no pet .) ( m e m . o p . , n o td e s i g n a t e d f o rp u b l i c a t i o n )
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . v , 1 , 3 , 1 3 Jay Pe trol eu m, L.L.C. v. EO G Res our ce s, In c. , 332 S.W.3d 534 ( Tex. A pp.—Ho ust on [ 1stDist .] 2 009, pet . deni ed)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 1 0 Montg omery v. B lu e C ros s & Bl ue Shiel d of

Te x., Inc. , 92 3 S.W.2d14 7 (T ex. App .—A ust in 19 96 , wri t d enied ).
. . . . . . . . . 10 State v. A nde rs on Cou rie r Ser v. , 22 2 S.W.3d62 (T ex. App .—A ust in 2005, pet . deni ed).
. . . . . . 1 2 , 1 3 Sw . G al va ni

zi ng , I nc . v . Eag l e F

ab ri c ators , I

nc ., 44 7 S .W .3d4 73 (T ex . A pp .— H ou st on [1 4th Di st .] 2 01 4, n o pet .)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Tex. Educ. Agenc y v. Max well , 937 S.W.2 d 6 21 (T ex. App .—E astl and19 97, wri t d enied ).
. . . . . . . 12 V-F P etrol eu m, Inc. v. A . K. Gu thrie Ope ratin g Co. , 792 S.W.2d508 (T ex. App .—A ust in 19 90, n o wr it ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Val adez v. A vitia , 238 S.W.3d 84 3 (Tex. A pp.—E l Paso 2007 , no pet .).
. . . . . . . . 1 1 , 1 3 Wh itmi re v. Gr e e nr id

ge P l ac e A

pa rtme nt

s , 333 S.W.3d 255 (T ex. App .—Ho ust on [ 1stDist .] 2 010, pet . di sm’d)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9iv I nde x o f Autho riti es ( Co nt’ d) Page s Statutes Tex. Go v’tCod e § 2 0 0 1 . 1 7 4 ( 2 )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 § § 2 2 5 1 . 0 0 1 - . 0 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v, 1 § § 2 2 6 0 . 0 0 1 - . 0 0 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 Tex. Uti l. Cod e § 1 5 . 0 0 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v , 1 , 1 6 , 1 8 § 1 5 . 0 0 3 ( a )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 14 , 15 § 3 9 . 9 0 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 § 3 9 . 9 0 3 ( a )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 § 3 9 . 9 0 3 ( b )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 § 3 9 . 9 0 3 ( d )

- ( l )
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 § 5 6 . 0 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 § § 1 1 . 0 1 - 6 6 . 0 1 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v § § 5 6 . 0 0 1 - . 3 0 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 O t h e r Tex. H .B. 1 , 84t h Leg., R.S. (201 5).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8v Gl os sary ALJ Ad min ist rat iv e Law Jud ge at the Sta te Of fi ce of Ad mi n i st ra t i v e H ea ri n gs Comm issi on Pu bli c Uti li ty C ommi ssion of T exas Cou rt ’s fi rst opi ni on Harris Cnty. Hosp . D ist. v. Pub . Ut il. Comm’n , No. 03-10-0 0647 -CV, 2 012 WL 29 892 28 (T ex. App .—A ust in Jul y 13, 2 012 , no pet.) ( mem. op. no t d esignat ed fo r publ ic at io n). Dist ri ct Har ri s Cou nt y Hospi ta l Dist ri ct Docket34332 Rec ord Ad min ist rat iv e Recor d of Docket , whi ch m ay be foun d amo ng t he it ems li sted a t htt p: // i n t er cha n ge. pu c .st at e.tx. u s/ We bA pp /I nt ercha nge/appl ic at io n/dbapps/fi li ngs/pgCo n t ro l .a sp ?TXT

_ U T ILI T

Y_ T YP E = A &TXT

_ CN TRL_N O=3 43 32&TXT_I TEM_MATCH=1&T XT_IT EM _NO= &TXT_N_UTILIT Y=&TXT_ N_FILE _PAR

TY= &TXT_DOC_

TYP E= ALL& TXT_ D_FRO M= &TXT_D_T O=&TXT_NEW =t rue Fo ot n ot e 6 H ar ri s C nt y . H os p. Dis t. , 2012 WL 2989228 at*7 n .6. Pro mptPayment Act Tex. Go v’tCod e §§ 2251 .001– .055 Public Utility Reg ulatory Act Tex. Util. Code §§ 11.01–66 .0 16 Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 T ex . Ut i l . C od e § 1 5. 00 3.vi Statement of the Case Th is appeal com es aft er reman d t o the t ri al cou rtin an a dmi ni stra tive ap peal o f

a c om pl ai n td ec i d edby the P u bl i cU t i l i ty C om mi ssi on o f T ex as . The C om mi ssi on ag re edt ha tt hi s C ou rt ’s ma n d at e r equ i re s the c as e t o be remand ed t o the Com missi on, bu t d isagreed thatth e tri al cou rtwas requ ir ed t o gran t the Har ri s Cou nt y Hospi ta l Dist ri ctfees for at to rneys and
ex pert s ba sedo n Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 o f t he U t i l i t i es C od e.

St ate me nt Reg ar di ng Or al Ar gu me nt Th e Commi ssion dou bts t hatora l argum ent wou ldbe helpf ul to th e Co u rti n t hi s c as e a n d , thu s, ha s n otr equ est edi t . B u tt he Di st ri ctr equ est ed oral argu mentand , shou ldth e Cou rtdeci de t hatitwan ts o ral argu ment , th e Co mm i ssi on as ks t o pa rt i c i pa t e.

Iss ue Pr esented On r emand , di d the t ri al cou rtproperly sign a ju dgment wi t ho u tSect i on 1 5. 00 3 f ees ?Tex. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Compl aint of H arris County Ho spitalDistrict 1 Against AT&T Texa s , Docket No. 34332, available at http://interchange .puc.state.tx.us/W ebApp/Interch ange/Documents/34 332_1_ 551225. PD F (Ma y 2 3, 20 0 7 ) (Di str ic

t’s Co mp la in t) (“C om pla in a nt i s n ot ‘e x em pt’ fro m late fees, rather AT&T may only apply late fee a s allowed by § 2251.”) This i s part of the adm inis trative record in this c ase andsubsequent citations will be to “Docket 34332 A.R.” After this Court issued its judgme nt and ma ndate, the Clerk of t he Court asked the Commiss ion to pick up the ad minis trative record. Anticip ating that the matter wou ld be reman dedto t he Comm issi on, the ad minis trative record was returned to the agen cy. Th us, i t i s n o lo ng er

wi th th e c ourt. 1

St ate me nt o f Fac

ts The H ar ri s C ou n ty H os pi t al Di st ri ctc on t i n u es t o see k f ees f oratt or n eys an d ex pert s f

ro m the “ re gu l at i on f

u n d ,” w hi ch t he Leg i sl at u re h as n ev er creat ed or fu ndedin th e 40 years sin ce t he l angu age was i ncl ud ed i n the P u bl i cU t i l i ty R egu l at or y Act . See T ex . Ut i l . C od e § 1 5. 00 3. This ap pe al conce rns a comp laint that the D istrict filed w ith the Pub lic Utili ty Com mis sion eig ht ye ars ag o ab out ove rb illi ng by Southw es tern Bell T el eph on e, L P d /b /aA T &T T ex as (A

T &T ) g oi n g ba ck t o tw en ty ye ar s a go . Har ris Cnty . Hos

p. Dist. v. P

ub. U til. C omm’n , N o. 0 3- 10-0 0647 -CV , 2012 WL 29 892 28 a t * 1 ( Tex. A pp.—A ust in Jul y 13, 2 012 , no pet .) (mem. op. n ot designa ted forpubl ic at io n). The Dist ri ctcom pl ai ned thatAT &Thad appl ied th e terms o f A

T&T’s t ari ff t o det ermin e la te charges rather than ap plyi n g the mo re gen er ou s t er ms o f t he P ro mp tP ay me n tAct , T ex . G ov ’t Co d e §§ 2 2 51 .0 01 -. 05 5, t o t he Di st ri ct , a go v er n me n t al en t i ty. 1Doc ke t 34 33 2 A .R . (J uly 16, 20 0 8) (O rd er De ny in g A pp eal of O rd er

No. 19) 2 available at http :/ /i nte rc

ha ng e. puc .s tate. tx .us /WebA pp /I nte rc

ha ng e/ Docume nts /3 4 33 2_ 162 _5 898 71 .P DF . Id . (“PURA § 58.15 2’s broad gra nt of pric ing flexibi lity regardi ng late fees 3 c a nn ot b e re a di n h a rm on y with the[Pr om pt P aym en t Ac t]’s pr ec is e me tho d olo gy for ha ndli ng suc

h fe es .” ). 2 The C om mi ssi on ag re edwi t h t he Di st ri ctt hatA T &T sh ou l d h av e bi l l ed th e Distr ict u sing the t erms of the Pr omptPayment Act r at her than th e la te-paymen t pr ovi sion s of i ts t ari ff. Th e Commi ssion det ermin ed t hatth e 2 Promp t Paym en t Act and the Pub lic Util ity Re gulatory Act we re in conflict, but that the Promp t Paym en t Act controlled. Give n the D istrict’ s de lay in 3 brin ging the case, ho wever, the Com missi on awar ded o nl y one-ha lf of the
ove rcollecte d amo unts. The D istrict ap pe aled to a trial court in Travis County , Te xas . I n that suit for judicial rev iew, the D istrict als o as ke d to
recov er it s fees for a tt orn eys and expert s und er Secti on 1 5.003 of the Tex as Ut il it ies Co de, a pro vi sion th athas been i n the Pu bli c Uti li ty R egul at ory Act sinc e itwas f

ir st ad opt ed i n 1 975, butwhi ch h as never been i mpl ementedor f u n d edby the Leg i sl at u re . The t ri al c ou rtaf f i rm edt he C om mi ssi on ’s or d er an d ma d e n o me n t i on o f t he Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 r equ est . On ap peal t o t hi s C ou rt , the Di st ri cti n cl u d eda Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 r equ est forfees in th e prayer of it s appell ant ’s brief, bu t the brief con ta in ed no issu eBrie f of the Appellant Ha rris County Hospi tal District at 43, Harris Cnty. 4 Hosp . D ist . v . P

ub . Util. C

omm ’n , No . 0 3- 10 - 0 0 64 7- CV (Ma r. 7 , 2 0 11 ). Brie f of the Appellee at 42-4 4, Har ri s C nty . Hos p. Dis t. v . P

ub . Util. C

omm ’n , 5 No. 0 3- 10 - 0 0 64 7- CV

(Ma y 1 3, 20 11 ). Appellant Harri s County Hospital Distric t’s Reply to Brief of Appellee, Har ri s 6 Cn ty. Hos

p. Dis t. v . P

ub . Util. C

omm ’n , No . 0 3- 10 - 0 0 64 7- CV (Jun . 9, 20 11 ). 3 norany ar gumentor a uthor it y support in g th atrequest. Al th ough th e 4 Dist ri ctappeared t o have waived a ny cl ai m by it s la ck of an i ssue or argum ent andauthor it ies, i n an abun dan ce of cau ti on, the Com missi on included in its app ellee ’s br ief s eve ral arg ume nts a ga inst s uch a re ques t. 5 Bu t the Dist ri ct ’s reply bri ef i ncl ud ed no response. Th us, nei th er of th e 6 Dis trict’s br iefs included a ny is sue or arg ume nt and autho rities to sup por t a Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 r equ estf orf ees . Th is Co urt ’s opin io n hel d thatth e Commi ssion was ar bit rary a nd
c ap ri c i ou s t o l i mi tt he r ef u n d t o on e- hal f

o f t he o v er cha rg es. Harris Cnty. H os p. Dis t. , 201 2 W L 29 892 28 a t * 8. Th e opin io n ad dressed Sect io n 1 5. 00 3 o n l y i n i t s F oo t n ot e 6 , s t at i n g: “ T o t he ex t en tt ha tt he Di st ri ctsee ks to hav e th is Co urtord er th e Commi ssion to ado pt the ALJ’s pro posal for deci sion andto awa rd i t ex pert’s f ees and at to rney’s fees, we decl in e to do so.” Id . a t* 7 n .6 (c i t at i on s o mi t t ed ).The ma ndate states: 7 IT IS THE REFOR E cons ide red, a djudgedandordere d that the judgment of t he trial c ourt is reversed , andthat the cause i s rema nded to t he trial c ourt wi th i ns truc

tio ns that thec a sebe re ma nd ed to th e Co mm is si on for fu rther procee dings consi stent with t his opi nion. It is FU RT HE R ordere d that the appellee pa

y all costs relating to this app eal, both in this Court and the court below ; an d that this d eci sion be certifiedbelow fo r observanc e. C.R. at 87. Judgment Rende red July 13, 2012, Har ri s C nty . Hos p. Dis t. v . P

ub . Util. 8 Co mm’n , No . 0 3- 10 .0 0 64 7- CV .

C.R . at 11 4. 9 Id . at 90. 10 Id . at 123. 11 4 The C ou rt ’s ma n d at e r ev er sedt he t ri al c ou rt ’s j u d gm en t , a n d r em an d ed 7 the ca use to the trial cour t “with instructions that the ca se be re mand ed to th e Commi ssion forfu rt her pro ceedi ngs con sist ent wi th th is o pin io n.” Although the mand ate o rde rs the Co mmis sion to pay court cos ts, ther e is
no o rder aboutSecti on 1 5.003 fees for a tt orn eys and expert s. Th e j u d gm en to f

t he C ou rtc on t ai n s the sa me l an gu ag e. 8 Af ter r emand , th e tri al cou rtto ok no act io n fo r two years. Then the Dist ri ctfi ledtw o mot io ns: 1 ) a mo ti on t o sever i ts c la ims f or a tt orn ey and
ex pe rt fe es and cos ts an d to ab ate the se ver ed claim; and 2) a m otion to 9 remandoverbi ll in g cl ai ms to th e Commi ssion
. 10 Th e Commi ssion agreed wi th th e Distr ict thatth e admi ni stra tive appeal shou ldbe remandedto th e Commi ssion , butdi sagreed aboutth e form of ord er th e tri al cou rtshou ldsign. Th e Commi ssion mai nt ai ned thatth e 11C. R. a t 14 9. 12 5 remandhadto be a fi nal ju dgment , notan i nt erl ocu to ry ord er. As t o the motion to s eve r, the Comm iss ion opp os ed the D istrict’ s m otion to se ver its
cl ai m f oratt or n ey’ s f

ees u n d erSect i on 1 5. 00 3 o f t he U t i l i t i es C od e. In add it io n t o the Com missi on’s c la ims thatth e Secti on 1 5.003 cl ai m was exti ngui shed wh en t hi s Cou rtdecl in ed t o gran t the request, the Co mm i ssi on n ot edt ha t , be c au se S ect i on 1 5. 00 3 r equ i re s a n y f ees t o be
aw ar d ed“ i n t he sa me act i on ,” T ex . Ut i l . C od e § 1 5. 00 3( a) , the f ee r equ est
cou ldnotbe severed. Th e tri al cou rtdeni ed t he mot io n t o sever an d si gned a f in al ju dgment remand in g th e mat ter t o the Com missi on. Th e Distr ict a ppeal s th at 12 judgm en t. Su mma ry o f the Ar gu me nt Forseveral in dependentreasons, the t ri al cou rtproperly signed afi nal ju dgmentremand in g th is c ase to th e Commi ssion wi th outany h eari ng on Secti on 1 5.003 fees. The Di stri ctdi d no t a sk th e tri al cou rtto set fees on remand ; in stead , th e Distr ict a sked th e tri al cou rtto sever andabat e th at
re ques t. More impo rtantly, this Cour t’s mand ate in the prior app ea l did notauthor iz e th e tri al cou rtto con sid er Secti on 1 5.003 fees. Instead , th eC.R . at 11 4. 13 6 ju dgmentandmand at e orderedth e tri al cou rtto remandth e mat ter t o the Co mm i ssi on — ex act l y w ha tt he t ri al c ou rtd i d
. Ad di ti ona lly, th e Distr ict h as no cl ai m fo r Sect io n 1 5.003 fees. Tha t stat ut e purpo rt s to al lo w certa in part ies t o reco ver f ees “again st the regul at io n fu nd,” butin th e 40 years sin ce t he Legisl at ure ena ct ed t he st at u t e, the “ re gu l at i on f u n d ” ha s be en n ei t he r c re at edn orf u n d ed
. Even if such a fund e xiste d, the Dis trict’s claim would not fit within its t er ms . The Di st ri ctw as n otal l egi n g tha tA T &T ’s ra t es w er e u n re as on ab l e, bu tt ha t , f

ora go v er n me n t al en t i ty l i ke the Di st ri ct , the r ea so n ab l e f ees set by the Co mmi ssion were superc eded by a di fferen t st at ut e—th e Pro mpt P ay me n tAct . Ar gu me nt The trial co urt pro perly gr anted final judgment without co nducti ng any heari ng o n the Distri ct’ s Sec tio n 15 .0 03 req

uest fo r fees . A. Th e D istr ict n ever request ed a h ea ring un til after the f i nal ju dg me nt wa s si g ne d. A f t ert hi s C ou rt

r em an d edt he ma t t ert o t he t ri al c ou rt , the Di st ri ctf i l ed tw o mot io ns, butneither of th em requ ested a h eari ng on it s Secti on 1 5.003
re ques t for fe es . I nste ad, the D istrict as ke d the tria l court to se ver its 13Id . at 90. 14 Id . at 123. 15 Id . at 14 8. 16 C.R. at 151. 17 7 requ est i nt o a d if

ferentcau se whi le r emand in g th e admi ni stra tive appeal 14 t o t he C om mi ssi on . The C om mi ssi on ag re edt ha tt he ma t t ern eed edt o be remand ed, butargu ed t hatth e remandshou ldbe partof afi nal ju dgment
an d t ha tn o sev er an c e sh ou l d be g ra n t ed
. A f t era he ar i n g o n t he Di st ri ct ’s 15 two motions , the trial court sig ne d a final judg me nt re mand ing the cas e to th e Commi ssion anddenyi ng t he Dist ri ct ’s mot io n t o sever. 16 It w as only aft er th e tri al cou rtsigned a fi nal ju dgmentth atth e Distr ict asked t he t ri al cou rtto con du cta hear in g on i ts Sect io n 1 5.003 requ est fo r fees, and then the request was c ond it io ned o n the t ri al cou rtgrant in g th e Dis trict’s motion for new trial. 17 Th e Distr ict c ann otcom pl ai n thatth e tri al cou rtnever c ond ucted a Secti on 1 5.003 heari ng wh en t he Dist ri ctfai ledto ti mely r equ est such a he ar i n g.C.R. at 87. 18 8 B. Th i s Co u rt ’ s man dat e d i d no t r eq u i re the tr i al c o u rtto cond uct an y § 15.0 03 fe es h ea ring. Secti on 1 5.003 fees were beyond the scope of th is Co urt ’s mand at e in th e pri or a ppeal ; th e tri al cou rthadno a uthor it y to con sid er th e issue on
re ma n d
. Th is Co urt ’s mand at e author iz ed t he t ri al cou rtonly to remandth e ma t t ert o t he C om mi ssi on f orc on si d er at i on i n l i gh to f the C ou rt ’s op i n i on . The ma n d at e st at es: THIS CAUSE came o n t o be heardon the reco rd o f the co urtbelow , andth e same being co nsid ered, because i t i s th e opin io n of th is Co urt t ha tt he re w as er ro r i n t he t ri al c ou rt ’s j u d gm en t : IT I S THER EFORE con sid ered, adj ud ged andord ered t hatth e ju dgment of the t ri al cou rtis r eversed, andth atth e cau se is reman ded t o the tr ia l cou rtwi th in stru ct io ns t hatth e case be remandedto th e Comm iss ion for fur ther pro ce ed ings cons iste nt with this op inion. I t is FURTHER orde re d that the a pp ellee pay all costs re lating to this appeal , both in th is Co urtandth e cou rtbelow ; andth atth is d ecisi on be c er t i f i edbel ow

f oro bse rv an c e. Wherefo re, we co mman d you to observe t he ord er of ourCou rtof Appe als in this be half and in a ll thing s ha ve the orde r duly recogn iz ed, obeyed, andexecut ed. 18 Th e only mat ter r eferenced in th is Co urt ’s mand at e is thatth e tri al cou rt remandth e case to th e Commi ssion “fo r fu rt her pro ceedi ngs con sist ent
wi t h t hi s o pi n i on .” The re i s n o me n t i on o f an y cl ai m f

orf ees . Thu s, c on d u ct i n g a h ea ri n g o n Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 f ees w as bey on d t he t ri al c ou rt ’s9

au t ho ri ty be c au se i tw as bey on d t he sc op e o f t he ma n d at e. “[ W] he n a c as e is re mand ed to the dis trict court with instruction s, that court’ s a uthority is li mit ed t o t ryin g only th ose issues speci fi ed i n the appel la te c ourt mand at e.” V–F

Pe trol eu m, Inc. v. A . K. Gu thrie Ope ratin g Co. , 7 92 S. W. 2d 508, 510 ( Tex. A

pp.—A ust in 19 90, n o wr it .). The t ri al cou rt“ha s no j u ri sd i ct i on t o re vi ew , i n t er pr et , o r en f or c e [ t he ap pel l at e c ou rt ’s] ma n d at e; itmustobserve andcar ry itou t. It s ord ers carr ying o utth e mand at e are min ist eria l.” Wh itmi re v. Gr e e nr id ge P l ac e A

pa rtme nt

s , 333 S.W.3d 255,
2 6 1 (T ex . A

pp .— H ou st on [1 stDi st .] 2 01 0, pe t . d i sm ’d )( c i t i n g Schl ieman n v. Garc ia , 6 85 S. W. 2 d 6 9 0, 6 9 2 (T ex . A pp .— Sa n An t on i o 1 9 84 , o ri g. proc eedin g)). The t ri al cou rtwou ldhav e vi ol at ed t hi s Cou rt ’s mand at e had i tt ak en u p the i ssu e o f

Sect i on 1 5. 00 3 f

ees . Co n t ra ry t o t he Di st ri ct ’s br i ef

(D i st ri ct ’s A

pp el l an t ’s B r. at1 0) , thi s c as e is n otsimi la r t o the proc edur al ci rcu msta nces i n Jay Pe trol eu m, L.L.C. v. EO G Res our ce s, In c. , 3 32 S. W. 3d53 4, 54 0 ( T ex . A pp .— H ou st on [1 stDi st .]
2 00 9 , p et . d en i ed ). Tha tc as e t u rn edo n pr oc ed u ral r u l es c on c er n i n g a sum mary judg me nt—rules that do not ap ply to this adm inistra tive ap pe al. An admi ni stra tive appeal rai ses legal qu esti ons abou t the agency’s fi nal orde r. Ultimate ly, the a ge ncy mus t iss ue a new

orde r whe n a re mand is requ ir ed. B uta summ ary j ud gment i s di fferen t. B ecau se itremov es all or10

pa rto f a c au se o f

act i on f ro m ad ec i si on by the f actf i n d er , r ev er si n g a sum mary judg me nt may me re ly me an that the caus e o f action or par t of it
mu stbe d ec i d edby the f actf i n d er — ei t he r t he j u ry

o r t he t ri al c ou rti t sel f
. Ca ses w he re t he ap pel l at e c ou rtc an r en d erj u d gm en taf t err ev er si n g a summar y ju dgmentare l imi ted. As thi s Cou rtexpl ai ned, “[ b]efore an ap pel l at e c ou rtmay r ev er se s u mm ar y j u d gm en tf

oro n e p arty a n d r en d er ju dgmentforth e oth er part y, al l part ies mu st h ave sou ght fi nal ju dgment rel ief in th eir c ross-mot io ns fo r summ ary j ud gment.” Montg omery v. B lu e Cros s & Bl ue Shiel d of

Te x., Inc. , 923 S. W. 2d 147, 152 (Te x. Ap p. —Austin
1 9 9 6 , w ri td en i ed ). At to rney’s fees were an i ssue on r emandin Jay Pe trol eu m because the la ck of a cr oss mot io n on al l cl ai ms made o ne part y’s causes of

act io n l iv e on r emandaft er th e Hou ston Cou rtof A ppeal s reversed sum mary j u d gm en t s. Jay Pe trol eu m , 3 32 S .W .3 d at 540 (“The mand ate p lainly reversed the [def

ensiv e] summa ry ju dgmenton the co un terc la ims, w hi ch necessari ly m ade those co un terc la ims l iv e.”). Bec ause thi s case is n ota summ ary j ud gment, n o ca use of act io n became live on remand . Al l th e tri al cou rtneeded t o do was t o t ake th e min ist eria l act io n of signi ng a f

in al ju dgmentth atremand ed t he case t o the Comm issi on f

or f urther pro ceedi ngs con sist ent wi th th is Co urt ’s opin io n.Brie f of the Appellant Ha rris County Hospi tal District at 43, Harris Cnty. 19 Hosp . D ist . v . P

ub . Util. C

omm ’n , No . 0 3- 10 - 0 0 64 7- CV (Ma r. 7 , 2 0 11 ). Id. at 44. 20 11 Anothe r cas e cite d by

the D istrict is e ven farthe r from the fa cts of this case. The appel la ntin Southwe st Ga lv anizi ng w as aw ar d edatt or n ey’ s f ees i n i t s i n i t i al ap peal
. Sw. Gal vaniz ing, Inc . v. Ea gl e F abric ators , Inc. , 447 S.W.3d 473, 47 8 (Tex . App.— Hou ston [1 4t h Dist .] 2 014 , no pet .). Thus, o n re ma n d t he t ri al c ou rth adn o op t i on bu tt o aw ar d att or n ey’ s f ees . C. Th is Cour t’s opin ion d ecline d t he Dist rict ’s request for Secti on 1 5. 003 f

ees. 1 . Th e D i st ri ct f

ail edto as si g n the f

ee s i ss u e a s er ro r i n i ts first app ea l. Bec ause the Dist ri ctneither l ist ed no r bri efed a r equ est fo r Sect io n 1 5. 00 3 f ees i n i t s i n i t i al ap peal , i tw aiv edt ho se i ssu es. See Val adez v. Av itia , 2 38 S .W .3d84 3, 84 4– 45 (T ex . A pp .— E l P as o 2 00 7, n o pet .) (f i n d i n g w aiv ero f

i ssu es tha tw er e n ei t he r l i st edn orbr i ef ed ). A l t ho u gh t he Di st ri cti n cl u d eda re q u estf orSect i on 1 5. 00 3 f

ees i n t he prayer of it s appell ant ’s brief i n the fi rst appeal , itfai ledto in cl ud e an i ssue or any br iefing to sup por t that pray er . But, be caus e S ec tion 15. 00 3 wa s in 19 t he Di st ri ct ’s pr ay er , t he C om mi ssi on ’s ap pel l ee’ s br i ef i n cl u d ed 20 argum ents a s to why the Dist ri ctwas n otent itledto recov er Secti on 1 5.003 fees. Even in th e face o f the Com missi on’s bri efin g on the mat ter, theAppellant Harri s County Hospital Distric t’s Reply to Brief of Appellee, Har ri s 21 Cn ty. Hos

p. Dis t. v . P

ub . Util. C

omm ’n , No . 0 3- 10 - 0 0 64 7- CV (Jun . 9, 20 11 ). 12 Di st ri ctf ai l edt o ad d re ss a n y o f

t ho se a rg u me n t s i n i t s r eply br i ef
. Thu s, 21 t he re w as a t ot al f

ai l u re by the Di st ri ctt o br i ef t he i ssu e. Th is st and s in con tr ast t o the facts i n Te xas Educ ation A gen cy v. Max well , 9 37S. W. 2 d 6 2 1 , 6 2 3 ( T ex . A pp .— E as t l an d 1 9 9 7, w ri td en i ed ). The re , the ap pel l ees pr ese rv edt he i r re q u estf oratt or n ey’ s f

ees by ac ro sspoint. But here , the Dis trict failed to p re se rve any Se ction 15. 00 3 is sue in i t s f i rs tap peal
. A mo re an al og ou s c as e i s State v. A nde rs on Cou rie r Ser vice , 222 S.W .3d6 2 (T ex . A

pp .— A u st i n 2 00 5, pe t . d en i ed ), w he re t hi s C ou rtr ef

u sed to al lo w at to rney’s fees on r emand . Al th ough An de rs on Cou rie r ar os e a s a decl arat ory j ud gment a ct io n at ta cki ng t he co nst it ut io nal it y of astat ut e, the l ac k o f a f ee i ssu e o n ap peal i s a n al og ou s t o t hi s c as e. In An de rs on Cou rie r , the trial court initially held the statute
con sti tu ti ona l. Bu t o n appeal th is C ourt h eldth e stat ut e unc onst it ut io nal andremand ed t o the t ri al cou rt . An derson Cou ri er, whi ch h ad l ost in th e tr ia l cou rt , di d no t a ddr ess the questi on o f at to rney’s fees in it s in it ia l appeal , butrequestedth em on r emand . When the reman d dec isi on w as ap peal ed , thi s C ou rtn ot edt ha tal t ho u gh An d er so n C ou ri erh adr equ est ed at to rney’s fees at th e ini ti al tr ia l, because t he issu e was no t r ai sed onC.R . 1 14. 22 C.R. at 90. 23 13 ap peal , the re w as n o re as on f ort hi s C ou rtt o re ma n d t he att or n eys f ees q u est i on t o t he t ri al c ou rt . Id . a t6 6 . Al th ough th e Cou rtis d eali ng wi th a di fferen t st at ut e in th is c ase, th e fact that the Dis trict did not sup por t its pra ye r for S ec tion 15. 00 3 fe es in th e fi rst appeal wi th an i ssue andargu mentis r eason eno ugh f or the Cou rt t o hav e d ecl i n edt he r equ est . See Val adez v. A vitia , 238 S.W.3d a t 84 4–4 5 (fi ndi ng waiver of

issu es tha t w ere neither l ist ed no r bri efed). 2. The Distri ct mi si nterprets Fo otno te 6 i n the Court’ s fi rst o pi ni o n. Foo tn ot e 6 i n the Cou rt ’s prio r opi ni on d oes notsupport ahol di ng t hat th e Secti on 1 5.003 fees issue wa s remand ed t o the t ri al cou rt . Only partof th e foot not e con cerns Sect io n 1 5.003 because t he foo tn ot e addr esses tw o di sti nctrequests the Dist ri ctmade i n i ts pr io r appeal : 1) th atth is Co urt ord er th e Commi ssion to ado pt the adm in ist rat iv e law j ud ge’s proposal for deci sion wi th outcha nge; and2) th atth e Cou rtawa rd f ees for the 22 Dist ri ct ’s att orn eys and expert s und er Secti on 1 5.003. Regard in g th e 23 i ssu e o n ap peal , the f

oo t n ot e st at es: “ T o t he ex t en tt ha tt he Di st ri ctsee ks to have this Cour t ... award it e xpe rt’s fee s a nd attorne y’ s fe es , we dec line to do so .” H

ar ri s C nt y . H os p. Dis t. , 2 01 2 WL

2 9 89 2 2 8 a t* 7 n .6 . A

l t ho u gh14

th e Cou rtci ted several author it ies fo r t hi s sentenc e, the f ir st two c it at io ns d o n otap ply t o Sect i on 1 5. 00 3. Instead , th ey conc erned the Dist ri ct ’s requ est thatth e Cou rtord er th e Comm issi on t o ad optth e ALJ’s propo sal fordeci sion : 1. Texa s G ove rnme nt Code § 20 01. 174(2) , which state s tha t the cour t “sh all
re ver se or re mand the ca se for furthe r pr oce ed ings if sub stan tial rights of the appel la nthav e bee n prej ud ic ed because the adm in ist rat iv e finding s, infer en ce s, conclus ions , or dec isions ” violate a ny o f six
re q u i re me n t s. 2. Ford Motor Co. v. B utna ru , 15 7 S .W .3 d 142, 149 ( Tex. App. —Austin 2005, n o pet .) ci ted forth e proposi ti on that : “In asui t f or j ud ic ia l revi ew of an a gency act io n, the revi ewin g cou rtis empo wered t o i ssue on l y a gen er al r em an d w he n i tf i n d s er ro r t ha tpr ej u d i c es a n ap pel l an t ’s substan ti al ri ghts.” Bo th of these apply o nl y to act io ns of th e Commi ssion . Bu t a s th e Distr ict admi ts, Uti li ti es Code Sect io n 1 5.003(b) di rect s th e cou rt , notth e Comm issi on, t o det ermin e fees, and t o aw ardth em agai nstth e “regul at io n fu nd.” Tex . Ut il . Cod e § 15.003(a). Th e only ci ta ti on i n the Cou rt ’s Foot not e 6 thatappl ies t o Sect io n 1 5.003 is thatstat ut e it self. Giv en t hatth e Distr ict m ade no argu ment s aboutth eDocket 34332 A .R. (May 23, 200 7) (Complaint of Ha rris County Hospi tal 24 District Agai nst AY&T Texas ) available at http://interchange .puc.state.tx.us/W ebApp/Interch ange/Documents/34 332_1_ 551225. PD F . 15 app licability of

Se ction 15. 00 3 a nd that the Comm iss ion e xplaine d in its brief why thatstat ut e di d no t a ppl y, a ci ta ti on t o the sta tu te su pport s th e con cl usi on thatth is Co urtwas n otremand in g th e case to th e tri al cou rtfor a Sect io n 1 5.003 fee deci sion
. Bu t the mostpersuasi ve i ndi cat io n of th is Co urt ’s in tentis the l ack o f a remandof the Sect io n 1 5.003 cl ai ms. Hadth e Cou rtin tend ed t hatSecti on 15. 00 3 fe es be addre ss ed on re mand , it would su re ly hav e s aid s o in its op i n i on , j u d gm en t , a n d ma n d at e. 3. Se cti o n 1 5. 00 3 do es no t a u tho ri z e p ayme nt o f fe es to the Distri ct fo r attorneys and experts i n this c ase. a. Th e D istr ict’s pr oceed ing at th e C omm ission d oes n ot fi t withi n the terms of Secti on 1 5. 003. Th e Distr ict’s c ase does no t c ome wi th in th e pla in l angu age of any righ t to re cove r fe es unde r Se ction 15. 00 3( a) of the Utilities C ode . I t app lies to “[a] part y represented by coun sel w ho a ll eges th atexist in g rat es are excessiv e or thatrat es prescri bed by the co mmi ssion are exc essive,” T ex. Ut il . Cod e § 15.003(a), bu t n owh ere in Dist ri ct ’s th e compl ai ntdi d i t a ssert th atAT &T ’s exist in g rat es were excessiv e or thatth ey shoul d be cha nged. 24 In fa ct, b y the Dis trict’s own adm iss ion, its comp laint had nothing at all toId. a t p. 4 of 1 0 (“C om pla in a nt i s n ot s ubj ec t to A T&T’s la te fee s un d er

i ts 25 tariff because Tex as law pre scribes a nother late fee structu re for all Pol itical Subdivisions .”).

Doc ke t 34 33 2 A .R . (J uly 16, 20 0 8) (O rd er De ny in g A pp eal of O rd er

No. 19) 26 available at http :/ /i nte rc

ha ng e. puc .s tate. tx .us /WebA pp /I nte rc

ha ng e/ Docume nts /3 4 33 2_ 162 _5 898 71 .P DF . 16 do with AT&T’s tariffe d rate s. And, in g ranting the D istrict’ s co mp laint, 25 t he C om mi ssi on d i d n otd et er mi n e t ha tA T &T ’s ra t e sche d u l es r equ i re d
ame ndme nt or we re othe rwis e unr ea so nab le. The Co mmis sion simp ly agreed wi th th e Distr ict thatth e Pro mptPayment Act pr evai ledover th e Public Utility Reg ulatory Act and limited am ounts the D istrict owe d for late payment s. The pl ai n l angu age of Sect io n 1 5.003(a) d oes notauthor iz e

26
re c ov er y o f f ees an d c os t s i n t hi s c as e. b. Th e D i st ri ct c ann o t be aw ar de d atto rn ey ’ s fe es an d c o st s be c au se the L eg i sl atu re has ne i the r c re ate d a re gu l ati o n f

u nd n o r a pp ro pr i ate d mo ney f o r s u ch a fu nd a nd h as no t w ai v edthe Co mmi ss i o n’ s i mmu ni ty . Ev en hadth e Distr ict n otwaived a ny Sect io n 1 5.003 righ t a nd the Cou rt notal ready d ecid ed agai nstth e Distr ict’s Sect io n 1 5.003 issue, the Dist ri ct st i l l c ou l d n oto bt ai n t he r el i ef i tr equ est s be c au se the Leg i sl at u re h as n ev er est ab l i sh eda re gu l at i on f u n d
. See Tex. Util. Code § 15 .0 03 re viso r’s noteThe revis or’s note was ad dedwhen the Public Utilities Regulatory Act was 27 codi fied a s part of the Ut ilities Cod e. 97 L aws, 75 R.S., c h. 166, § 1, 199 7 Tex . Gen. th L aws 7 13 –1 0 18.

Tex. Util. Code § 39.903(b) (“The system be nefit fu nd i s financ ed by a 28 nonbypas sable fee s et by the commi ssion i n an a mount not to ex cee d 65 cents pe r megawatt hour. The system be nefit fu nd fee i s allocated to cust omers ba sedon the a mo unt o f ki lowatt ho urs use d .” ).

Id . at § 39.903(d)–( l ). 29 17 (sta ti ng “A

lthou gh t he regul at io n fu nd d oes notexist , th e revi sed l aw reta in s th e reference t o ret ai n wh at ever meani ng i t m ay hav e.”). 27 Secti on 1 5.003 of the Ut il it ies Co de ment io ns a “r egul at io n fu nd,” butno stat ut e creat es such afu nd. Thi s stan ds i n st ark c ont rastto other fu nds associ at ed wi th th e Commi ssion . Forexampl e, al l of Su bchapt er 56 o f the Pu bli c Uti li ty R egul at ory Actis d evot ed t o the un iv ersal servi ce fu nd. T ex. Ut il . Cod e §§ 56.001– .301. Sect io n 56 .021 establ ishes thatfu nd. A nd the sys t em ben ef

i tf u n d i s es t ab l i sh edby Ut i l i t i es C od e Se ct i on 39 .9 03 . I t de scr ibe s the sy ste m b en ef it fund at leng th, including the s tatem en t that it “i s a n ac c ou n ti n t he gen er al r ev en u e f u n d .” T ex . Ut i l . C od e § 3 9 .9 03 (a ). Secti on 39 .903 al so describes the sou rce of th e system benefitfu nd and 28 how itis t o be admi ni stered a nd u sed. Cl earl y th e Legislat ure kn ows h ow 29 to creat e a fu nd. B utno su ch c reat io n l angu age exist s for th e “regul at io n f u n d .”18

In ad d i t i on t o t he l ac

k o f l egi sl at i on c re at i n g the f u n d , i th as n ev erbee n f u n d edby the Leg i sl at u re . See Tex. H .B. 1 , 84t h Leg., R.S. (201 5) (c urr ent ap pr op ri at i on s bi l l wi t ho u tan y “ re gu l at i on f u n d ”) ; see also Tex. Uti l. Cod e § 15.003 revi sor’s no te (st at in g “Al th ough th e regul at io n fu nd d oes not
ex ist, the re vise d law re tains the re fe re nce to reta in whate ver me aning it
may h av e.” ). Bec ause the regul at io n fu nd d oes notexist , andbecause the Legisla tu re has n otappro pri at ed any mo ney foruse i n thatfu nd, the Dist ri ctcan notdemon stra te the requi sit e con sent by the Sta te t o be subject t o l i ab i l i ty, an d an y cl ai m i s thu s ba rr edby s ov er ei gn i mm u n i ty. See Fed
. Si gn v. T ex. S. U ni v. , 9 51 S. W. 2 d 4 01 , 4 1 4 (T ex . 1 9 9 7) , su pers ed ed

by
s ta tu te on ot

he r gr ou nd

s , Tex. Go v’tCod e § 22 60.001 -.008 (J. Hech t
concurr ing) (re cog nizing that ab se nce of leg islative app rop riation is fatal to
su i tag ai n stt he St at e, e v en w he re t he Leg i sl at u re may h av e w aiv ed
so v er ei gn i mm u n i ty f

ro m s u i t .) Prayer The C om mi ssi on as ks t he C ou rtt o af f i rm t he d i st ri ctc ou rt ’s j u d gm en t . Th e Commi ssion asks th e Cou rtforsuch other rel ief as itmay be enti tl ed.19 Respectf ul ly su bmit ted, KE N PA XT ON At to rney General of T exas CHA RLES E . ROY Fi rst Assi stan t A

tt orn ey General JA M E S E . DA

VI S Deputy A

tt orn ey General forCi vi l Lit igat io n PRIS CIL LA M. HUBENAK Di vi si on C hi ef En vi ron ment al Pr ot ect io n Divisi on /s / El izabe th R. B . Sterl ing El iz abeth R . B. St erl in g Ass istant Attorne y G en er al Texa s Stat e BarNo. 1 91 711 00 eli zabeth .sterl in g@texasatto rneygeneral .gov En vi ron ment al Pr ot ect io n Divisi on Off ic e of the Atto rney General P.O. B ox 1 254 8, MC-0 66 Au sti n, T exas 7871 1-2 548 512.4 63. 2012 512 .457.46 16 (fa x) COUN SELFOR PUBL IC UTI LI TY COMMI SS IO N O F TEXAS20 Certif ic ate of Compl ianc e I cert if y th atth e foregoi ng co mput er-generat ed do cu menthas 4,00 3 words , ca lculated us ing the comp uter p rog ram WordPe rfe ct 12, purs uant to Texa s Rul e of A

ppell at e Pro cedu re 9.4.

/s/ El izabe th R. B . Sterl ing El iz abeth R . B. St erl in g21 Certif ic ate of Serv ic e I hereby cert if

y th aton thi s th e 26 th day o f Octo ber 201 5, a t rue an d c or re ctc op y o f

t he f or ego i n g d oc u me n tw as ser v edo n t he f

ol l ow i n g c ou n sel ele ctronically, throug h an e lectron ic filing s ervice a nd b y e mail: /s / El izabe th R. B . Sterl ing El iz abeth R . B. St erl in g
Br uc e S. Pow ers H ar ri s C ou n ty Assi st an tC ou n ty A t t or n ey 101 9 Co ngress, 15th Fl oor Hou ston , Texa s 77002 713.2 74.51 44 713.755.89 24 (fa x) br u c e.p ow er s@c ao .h ct x. n et A T T OR NEY S F OR H ARRI S C OU NT Y H OSP ITAL D IS TRI CT /s/ El izabe th R. B . Sterl ing El iz abeth R . B. St erl in g

### APPENDIX AFiled in The District Court of Travis County , Texas 

### MAR 2

### 7 2015 

# €!;> At 

## q· . sj A - M. CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-09-002116 Velva L. Price, District Clerk HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, 

### v .. PUBLIC UTILI1Y COMMISSION OF TEXAS, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

25oth JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FINAL .JUDGMENT On ,J anua1y 22 , 2015, the Court considered two motions filed by the Harris County Hospital District (District): 1) Motion for Order Remanding Overbilling Claims lo Lhe Public Utility Commission of Texas and 2) Motion to Sever Claims for Attorney and Expert Fees and Costs and lo Abale the Severed Claims. All parties appeared through counsel. The Court, having considered the briefs, the pleadings, the argumenl of counsel, and the opinion, judgment, and mandate of the Court 

### of Appeals for the Third District of 

### Texas sitling in Austin, herehy denies the motion to Sever Claims for Attorney and Expert Fees and Costs and to Abate the Severed Claims. The Court further orders that the Commission's Docket 34332, Complaint of Harris County Hospital District Against Sw. Bell Telephone, LP d/b/a AT&T Texas, be remanded to the Commission for proceedings in accord**\'\~th** the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas. Although this Court previously affirmed the Commission's Docket 34332 final order, the Anstin Court of Appeals reversed that decision in Harris CountyHospital District v. Public Utility Commission, 2012 WL 2989228 (Tex. App.-Austin 2012, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The Court finds that, although the Court of Appeals reversed this Courfs judgment affirming the Commission's order, the Court of Appeals declined the District's claims under Texas Utilities Code§ 15.003 for attorneys and expert witnesses and other costs for the pa1ty's efforts before the Commission and the court. Therefore, the Court denies the District's request to sever that claim into a different lawsuit. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Hospital District's Motion to Sever Claims for Attorney and Expert Fees and Costs and to Abate the Severed Claims is denied. IT IS FURTHER THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Final Order of the Public Utility Commission in Docket 34332 is REVERSED and remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Austin Court of Appeals in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in accord with the Court of Appeals' mandate, the Public Utility Commission of Texas pay all costs relating to the appeal, both in the Court of Appeals and in this Court. All relief not specifically granted herein is denied. This judgment is final, disposes of all claims and all parties, and is appealable.

2Eli eth R. B. Sterling Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for the Public Utility Commission of Texas Approved as to Form Only

# \~-R~~tS Thomas R. Bray Attorneys for Harris County Hospital District

3

### APPENDIX BMANDATE THE STATE OF TEXAS TO THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, GREETINGS: Trial Court Cause No. D-l-GN-09-002116 Before our Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas on July 13, 2012, the cause on appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between Harris County Hospital District No. 03-10-00647-CV v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas Was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court's judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and that the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions that the case be remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellee pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified below for observance. Wherefore, we command you to observe the order of our Court of Appeals in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

,. .

; -{ :
.·

- ........ .**-~** ! -').

< :'D J Witness the Honorable J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed in the City of Austin on Friday, September 28, 2012. JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK**By:~~~~+-+-~~~~---~** Amy StrotherBILL OF COSTS TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN No. 03-10-00647-CV Harris County Hospital District
v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas (No. D-1-GN-09-002116 IN 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY) Type of Fee Charges Paid By SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51 FEE $50.00 PAID MARKETING ON HOLD INDIGENT $25.00 PAID MARKETIN ON HOLD FILING $100.00 PAID MARKETING ON HOLD CLERK'S RECORD $529.00 UNKNOWN REPORTER'S RECORD $75.00 UNKNOWN SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S RECORD $0.00 UNKNOWN FILING $10.00 PAID THOMAS R BRAY FILING $10.00 PAID THOMAS R BRAY ATTORNEY AT LAW FILING $10.00 PAID CHARLES W MCDONALD FILING $10.00 PAID OAG, ELIZABETH STERLING REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV EFILING FEE $4.00 E-PAID OAG REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV EFILING FEE $4.00 E-PAID THOMAS R. BRAY REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV EFILING FEE $4.00 E-PAID THOMAS R. BRAY REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV EFILING FEE $4.00 E-PAID AG

- ENVIRNMNT AL PROTEC & ADMIN REQUIRED TEXAS.GOV EFILING FEE $4.00 E-PAID BRAY & ASSOCIATES Balance of costs owing to the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas: $0.00
Court costs in this cause shall he paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court. I, JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK OF THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

"' · ...... . 

# .. '

. I \. : -/ : IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Third District of Texas on September 28, 2012.

### APPENDIX CTEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 13, 2012

NO. 03-10-00647-CV

Harris County Hospital District, Appellant

v. The Public Utility Commission of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 250TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, ROSE AND GOODWIN REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the trial court's judgment: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and that the cause is remanded to the trial court with instructions that the case be remanded to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellee pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified below for observance.