Opinion ID: 894901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: New claims asserted after the jurisdictional plea

Text: After the trial court denied SWBT's jurisdictional plea, plaintiffs filed several amended petitions asserting new claims for breach of contract and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, some of which pertain not to the TUSF, but to SWBT's Touch-tone charges. SWBT's plea to the jurisdiction was limited to the core claims, and its request for mandamus relief asks that we order the trial court to dismiss those claims pending at the time [the trial court] denied Relator's Plea to the Jurisdiction. SWBT asserts that our decision on the core claims may prove helpful to both the trial court and the litigants in resolving jurisdiction over the newly added [claims], and any future claims as well. We agree. SWBT also asks that we order the trial court to stay all claims not addressed by SWBT's plea to the jurisdiction pending the PUC's determination of the core claims, or that we direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the plea and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Although abatement may well be appropriate, we believe the latter course is the more prudent. SWBT has not yet filed a jurisdictional plea as to the new claims, and the parties have not briefed or presented those issues to the trial court. See In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1999). Should SWBT file such a plea as to the new claims, the trial court may consider it with the benefit of this opinion and our recent decision in In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 226 S.W.3d 400 (Tex.2007) (holding that trial court abused its discretion in refusing to abate claims within the PUC's primary jurisdiction).