Court Opinion

ID: 9918470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-13 01:00:50.07029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:40.034125
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10558     Document: 00517031891         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/12/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit
                                ____________
                                                                               FILED
                                                                        January 12, 2024
                                  No. 21-10558
                                ____________                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                               Clerk
   American Precision Ammunition, L.L.C, also known as
   Precision Ammunition; Matthew Campbell; Lauren
   Campbell,

                                                           Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                      versus

   City of Mineral Wells; The Mineral Wells Industrial
   Foundation, Incorporated; The Mineral Wells/Palo
   Pinto Area Growth Council; Stephen L. Butcher; S.L.B.,
   Incorporated,

                                           Defendants—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                               No. 4:19-CV-973
                  ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge:
          This case serves as a strong reminder of the consequences of entering
   into a contract that obligates a party to perform an action forbidden by law.
   The City of Wells in Texas (“City”) and American Precision Ammunition,
   L.L.C. (“APA”) entered into a Tax Abatement Agreement (“Agreement”)
   in which the City promised to “gift” APA $150,000 and provide APA ten
Case: 21-10558      Document: 00517031891           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 21-10558

   years of tax abatements. The City ultimately terminated the Agreement,
   claiming that the $150,000 gift was illegal under the Texas Constitution.
   APA sued the City and, relevant to this appeal, brought claims for breach of
   contract, a violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act (“TOMA”), denial of
   federal due process, and denial of due course of law under the Texas
   Constitution. The district court dismissed the claims under Rules 12(b)(6)
   and 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and denied APA’s
   motion for reconsideration and motion to alter or amend final judgment.
   Because the illegality of the contract is apparent from the face of the
   complaint, we AFFIRM.
                 I. Factual and Procedural History
          APA is in the business of designing and fabricating munitions,
   munitions components, and munitions equipment. On July 5, 2016, APA
   entered into the Agreement with the City. The Agreement provided APA
   with financial incentives as part of the City’s efforts to entice APA to relocate
   to the City. For example, under the Agreement, APA agreed to spend at least
   $250,000 on improvements to its new site in the City, and the City agreed to
   “gift” APA $150,000 towards this total. The Agreement also contained
   provisions detailing the number of employees that APA would employ, tax
   abatements that APA would receive, and inspections that the City would
   perform.
          APA alleges its relationship with the City began to sour in 2017, about
   a year after the parties entered into the Agreement. On July 17, 2018, the
   City, through its council, voted to revoke the Agreement without paying the
   $150,000 “gift” because of the City’s claim that the gift was illegal under
   Texas’s Constitution. This lawsuit followed.
          In its original complaint, APA brought claims against the City for
   breach of contract, a violation of the TOMA, violation of federal due process

                                          2
Case: 21-10558      Document: 00517031891          Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                    No. 21-10558

   protections, and violation of the due course of law provision of the Texas
   Constitution. The City filed its first motion to dismiss, which the district
   court granted, thereby dismissing the breach of contract, 42 U.S.C. § 1983
   federal due process, and Texas due course of law claims with prejudice. The
   district court also dismissed APA’s TOMA claim, but without prejudice
   because APA was granted leave to amend that claim. APA then filed its first
   amended complaint, which continued to plead all four claims even though
   the district court only granted APA leave to amend the TOMA claim.
          Over a month later, APA filed a motion for reconsideration of the
   district court’s decision to dismiss the breach of contract claim. In the
   alternative, APA moved for leave of court to file a second amended
   complaint. The district court denied APA’s motion for reconsideration and
   motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The district court also
   struck the portions of the first amended complaint that related to the three
   claims—breach of contract, federal due process, and state law due course of
   law claims—already dismissed with prejudice. The only claim remaining in
   APA’s first amended complaint relevant to the instant appeal was APA’s
   TOMA claim. The City filed a second motion to dismiss the TOMA claim—
   this time as moot. The district court granted the second motion pursuant to
   Rule 12(b)(1) and dismissed APA’s TOMA claim without prejudice as moot.
   The district court also entered final judgment in favor of the City and against
   APA. APA filed a motion to alter or amend the final judgment, “request[ing]
   the [district court to] alter and amend its judgment dismissing” APA’s
   breach of contract claim against the City. The district court denied the
   motion. The instant appeal followed.
                         II. Standards of Review
          We review de novo whether a complaint pleads enough facts to state
   a claim to relief that is plausible on its face under Rule 12(b)(6). Whitley v.

                                          3
Case: 21-10558         Document: 00517031891               Page: 4      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                           No. 21-10558

   Hanna, 726 F.3d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). “A claim has
   facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
   court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
   misconduct alleged.” Bell v. Eagle Mountain Saginaw Indep. Sch. Dist., 27
   F.4th 313, 320 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
   (2009)). Although “[t]he failure-to-state-a-claim inquiry typically focuses on
   whether the plaintiff plausibly alleges the element of a claim,” a “Rule
   12(b)(6) dismissal may also ‘be appropriately based on a successful
   affirmative defense’ provided that the affirmative defense ‘appear[s] on the
   face of the complaint.’” Id. (quoting Basic Cap. Mgmt. v. Dynex Cap., Inc.,
   976 F.3d 585, 588 (5th Cir. 2020)). 1 “[T]he pleadings must ‘reveal beyond
   doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts’ that would overcome the
   defense or otherwise entitle them to relief.” Id. (quoting Garrett v.
   Commonwealth Mortg. Corp., 938 F.2d 591, 594 (5th Cir. 1991)).
           We also review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a moot claim
   for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Payne v. Progressive Fin. Servs., Inc.,
   748 F.3d 605, 607 (5th Cir. 2014).
           Finally, we review the denial of both a motion for reconsideration and
   a motion to alter or amend a final judgment for abuse of discretion. See Ryan
   v. Phillips 66, 838 F. App’x 832, 834 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted);

           _____________________
           1
             In its briefing, APA asks us “to resolve [what it characterizes to be a] split among
   the district courts in this Circuit regarding which pleading standard applies to affirmative
   defenses.” According to APA, some district courts apply the plausibility standard to
   answers, while some do not. APA invites us “to adopt the plausibility standard to
   affirmative defenses” asserted in a pleading (e.g., an answer). We find no occasion to reach
   this issue because, though an affirmative defense forms the basis of the City’s motion to
   dismiss, a motion to dismiss (i.e., what is on appeal), as opposed to an answer, is not a
   pleading. FED. R. CIV. P. 7(a).

                                                 4
Case: 21-10558        Document: 00517031891              Page: 5       Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                          No. 21-10558

   McClendon v. United States, 892 F.3d 775, 781 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation
   omitted). Under this standard, the court’s decision need only be reasonable.
                                    III. Discussion
           The district court dismissed APA’s breach of contract, TOMA,
   federal due process, and state due course of law claims. We review each claim
   in turn.
                                               A.
           APA first argues the district court erred when it found the Agreement
   illegal and, therefore, unenforceable under Texas law. As explained below,
   the district court did not err because the illegality of the Agreement is clear
   from the face of the complaint and the contract attached to it. 2
           “Under Texas law, 3 a contract is illegal, and thus void, if the contract
   obligates the parties to perform an action that is forbidden by the law of the
   place where the action is to occur.” In re OCA, Inc., 552 F.3d 413, 422 (5th
   Cir. 2008) (citing Miller v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 222 S.W.2d 244, 246 (Tex.
   1949)). “Contracts are presumptively legal, so the party challenging the
   contract carries the burden of proving illegality.” Id. (citing Franklin v.
   Jackson, 847 S.W.2d 306, 310 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1992, writ denied)).
   Article III, section 52(a) of the Texas Constitution “prohibits the Legislature
           _____________________
           2
             “A written document that is attached to a complaint as an exhibit is considered
   part of the complaint and may be considered in a 12(b)(6) dismissal proceeding.” See Ferrer
   v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (first citing FED. R. CIV. P. 10(c) (“A
   copy of any written instrument which is an exhibit to a pleading is a part thereof for all
   purposes.”); and then citing Kane Enters. v. MacGregor (USA) Inc., 322 F.3d 371, 374 (5th
   Cir. 2003) (“[T]he court may review the documents attached to the motion to dismiss . . .
   where the complaint refers to the documents and they are central to the claim.”)).
           3
             The district court exercised 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction over
   APA’s state law claims; therefore, as in a diversity case, we apply Texas substantive law to
   these claims.

                                                5
Case: 21-10558      Document: 00517031891            Page: 6    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                      No. 21-10558

   from authorizing any [city] . . . to grant public money[,]” which the Supreme
   Court of Texas has stated “means that the Legislature cannot require
   gratuitous payments to individuals, associations, or corporations” and cannot
   “authorize a county, city, town or political subdivision of the State to lend
   credit or grant public funds.” Tex. Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v.
   Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n, 74 S.W.3d 377, 380, 383-84 (Tex. 2002)
   (citations omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist.
   V. Meno, 917 S.W.2d 717, 740 (Tex. 1995), as modified (Feb. 16, 1995).
   However, “[a] [city]’s paying public money is not ‘gratuitous’ if the [city]
   receives return consideration.” Tex. Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool,
   74 S.W.3d at 383 (citing Key v. Comm’rs Ct. of Marion Cnty., 727 S.W.2d 667,
   668 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1987, no writ)).
          Section 52(a) has rarely been addressed in the contract context, so we
   look to the statutory context for guidance. Doing so, the Supreme Court of
   Texas has stated “section 52(a) does not prohibit payments to individuals,
   corporations, or associations so long as the statute requiring such payments:
   (1) serves a legitimate public purpose; and (2) affords a clear public benefit in
   return.” Id. (citations omitted). With respect to the first prong, to determine
   whether the “statute requiring such payments . . . serves a legitimate public
   purpose, . . . the Legislature must” do three things: “(1) ensure that the
   statute’s predominant purpose is to accomplish a public purpose, not to
   benefit private parties; (2) retain public control over the funds to ensure that
   the public purpose is accomplished and to protect the public’s investment;
   and (3) ensure that the [city] receives a return benefit.” Id. at 383-84 (citations
   omitted) (emphasis added). That latter requirement of “a return benefit,” or
   better put, “consideration,” is fatal to APA’s lawsuit.
          In its motion to dismiss, the City argued that it could not provide APA
   with the $150,000 because, under Section 52(a), it “is prohibited by law from
   giving a gift of public monies to corporations and individuals.” APA

                                           6
Case: 21-10558      Document: 00517031891           Page: 7    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 21-10558

   responded that although the Agreement “described the payment of $150,000
   as a ‘Gift[,]’ in reality the City agreed to provide APA with this payment in
   consideration of APA’s agreement to relocate to [the City], along with other
   valuable consideration as further identified in Exhibit C attached to the
   Complaint” and that “a ‘transfer of funds for a public purpose, with a clear
   public benefit received in return, does not amount to a lending of credit or
   grant of public funds in violation of’ [the Texas Constitution].” The district
   court found that APA failed to “point to any facts alleged in the Complaint .
   . . to support its presumed conclusion that the City’s gift of $150,000 was for
   a public purpose ‘with a clear public benefit.’” The district court concluded
   that because the gift did not fall within any exception, “the contract is illegal
   and unenforceable.”
          Under our de novo review, we find that the City’s contractual
   obligation to “gift” APA $150,000 constitutes a gratuitous payment of public
   money, meaning APA’s breach of contract claim cannot succeed because the
   contract is illegal under Texas’s Constitution. Both APA’s complaint, and
   the Agreement attached to APA’s complaint, are unambiguous that the
   City’s $150,000 payment was intended to be a gratuitous transfer to APA for
   two reasons. See Chisholm Trail SUD Stakeholders Grp. v. Chisholm Trail
   Special Util. Dist., No. 03-16-00214-CV, 2017 WL 2062258, at *6-7 (Tex.
   App.—Austin May 11, 2017, pet. denied) (examining whether “the express
   terms of the Agreements conclusively establish the District’s return
   consideration and the Agreements’ public purposes” and concluding that
   they were conclusively established by the express terms); see also Morales v.
   Hidalgo Cnty. Irrigation Dist. No. 6, No. 13-14-00205-CV, 2015 WL 5655802,
   at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Sept. 24, 2015, pet. denied)
   (examining whether contract unambiguously provided consideration).
          First, consider the plain meaning of the terms of the Agreement. The
   Agreement states that APA “shall make a Capital Investment of no less than

                                          7
Case: 21-10558      Document: 00517031891            Page: 8    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                      No. 21-10558

   $200,000 in the aggregate for Required Improvements including $150,000.00
   Gift from City to [APA] for infrastructure for Land to accommodate its
   manufacturing business” and slates completion of the improvements in part
   as “15 months from the date city gifts funds to [APA].” The complaint also
   repeatedly refers to the transfer as a “gift.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines
   “gift” as “[t]he voluntary transfer of property to another without
   compensation.” Gift, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (emphasis
   added). “[W]e must presume parties intend what the words of their contract
   say and interpret contract language according to its plain, ordinary, and
   generally accepted meaning unless the instrument directs otherwise.”
   Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882, 888
   (Tex. 2019) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Birdwell v.
   Birdwell, 819 S.W.2d 223, 228 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, writ denied)
   (“[T]he alimony provision . . . does NOT state that [the alimony provision] is
   wholly gratuitous.”) (emphasis added). The Agreement’s later reference to
   the $150,000 as a “grant” does not negate the plain meaning of the word
   “gift.” Looking to Black’s Law Dictionary again, “grant” is “[a]n agreement
   that creates a right or interest in favor of a person or that effects a transfer of
   a right or interest from one person to another” or “[t]he formal transfer of
   real property.” Grant, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). This
   definition of “grant” aligns with the gratuitous nature of a “gift.”
          Second, the Agreement does not indicate any consideration in
   exchange for the $150,000 gift and therefore, on the Agreement’s face, there
   is no “return benefit.” The Agreement specifies that “[i]n return for
   [APA]’s construction of the Required Improvements” and APA operating
   its business on the land, the City would provide ten years of tax abatements.
   Therefore, under the plain text of the Agreement, the tax abatements—not
   the $150,000 gift—are the return benefit that APA was set to receive for
   relocating to the City. That the Agreement as a whole is “consistent with

                                           8
Case: 21-10558        Document: 00517031891             Page: 9      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                         No. 21-10558

   encouraging development of the Zone and generating economic development
   and increased employment opportunities in the City” 4 does not undermine
   the gratuitous nature of a “gift” nor does it undermine the text of the
   Agreement, which specifies that the tax abatements are what APA was to
   receive in exchange for relocating. Moreover, the other “return benefits” to
   the City for its gift that our dissenting colleague alludes to are his own
   invention given that they are found nowhere in the terms of the Agreement.
   Again, it is the terms of the Agreement that govern, not the dissent’s ipse
   dixit. See, e.g., Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc., 574 S.W.3d at 888 (“As we have
   often said, in one way or another, ‘[a] contract’s plain language controls, not
   what one side or the other alleges they intended to say but did not.’”)
   (quoting Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Primo, 512 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. 2017)).
   While our dissenting colleague would alternatively find consideration
   because the $150,000 gift “c[a]me with significant strings attached,” he cites
   to no source of law for the proposition that strings attached equals
   consideration. Post, at 4. That is likely because his proposed rule
   impermissibly melds the second requirement (control over the gift retained
   by the City) and third requirement (consideration) under Texas Municipal
   League, rendering the second requirement superfluous. All told, the parties
   are stuck with the terms of their own Agreement. End of story. 5

           _____________________
           4
             The dissent’s apparent public policy concern about not wanting to thwart
   economic development efforts has no bearing on our obligation to read contract terms
   according to their plain meaning. Post, at 3.
           5
            Because the City received no return benefit for the $150,000 gift under the terms
   of the Agreement, we do not consider whether the City would have maintained sufficient
   control over the funds or whether giving funds for a corporation’s relocation could ever
   have the “predominant purpose” of “accomplish[ing] a public purpose.” Tex. Mun.
   League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, 74 S.W.3d at 384.

                                               9
Case: 21-10558        Document: 00517031891              Page: 10       Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                          No. 21-10558

           For all of these reasons, the district court was correct to dismiss
   APA’s breach of contract claim, and the district court did not abuse its
   discretion in denying APA’s motion for reconsideration and motion to
   amend judgment, because the Agreement is unambiguous that the $150,000
   transfer was intended to be gratuitous. The pleadings “‘reveal beyond doubt
   that [APA] can prove no set of facts’ that would overcome the [affirmative]
   defense [of illegality] or otherwise entitle [it] to relief.” Bell, 27 F.4th at 320
   (quoting Garrett, 938 F.2d at 594). 6
                                               B.
           APA also alleges that the City violated the TOMA when it voted to
   terminate the Agreement. APA alleges the termination violated the TOMA
   because the agenda notice for the city council’s meeting did not sufficiently
   apprise the public that the Agreement would be discussed or that any action
   might be taken with regard to it. Distilled to its essence, by way of the TOMA
   claim, APA wanted the district court to reinstate the Agreement. Because the
   district court determined that the Agreement was illegal, the court dismissed
   the TOMA claim as moot because there was no “agreement” to reinstate.
   APA agrees on appeal that its TOMA claim is predicated on a finding that
   the Agreement was valid and enforceable. Because we agree with the district
   court that the Agreement is unenforceable, we affirm the district court’s Rule
   12(b)(1) dismissal of the TOMA claim without prejudice as moot. We lack
   subject matter jurisdiction to review a moot claim. Ctr. for Individual Freedom
   v. Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655, 661 (5th Cir. 2006).

           _____________________
           6
             Separately, APA argues for the first time on appeal that the $150,000 gift was not
   “public funds” because the funds were provided to the City by a private entity.
   “Arguments not raised in district court will not be considered absent extraordinary
   circumstances.” Chevron USA, Inc. v. Aker Mar. Inc., 689 F.3d 497, 503 (5th Cir. 2012)
   (internal quotation marks omitted). APA points to no extraordinary circumstance.

                                               10
Case: 21-10558      Document: 00517031891            Page: 11    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                      No. 21-10558

                                           C.
          APA’s final argument is that the district court erred by dismissing a
   claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the City violated APA’s due
   process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and a claim based on
   the Texas Constitution’s due course of law clause. TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 19
   (“No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges
   or immunities, or in any manner disenfranchised, except by the due course of
   the law of the land.”). As the parties recognize, Texas applies federal
   interpretations of due process to Texas due course of law claims. Mosley v.
   Tex. HHS Comm’n, 593 S.W.3d 250, 264 (Tex. 2019); Gates v. Tex. Dep’t of
   Protective and Regul. Servs., 537 F.3d 404, 438 (5th Cir. 2008). We therefore
   analyze both claims together.
          “To state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim under § 1983,
   ‘a plaintiff must first identify a protected life, liberty or property interest and
   then prove that governmental action resulted in a deprivation of that
   interest.’” Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting
   Baldwin v. Daniels, 250 F.3d 943, 946 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam)) (emphasis
   added). APA argues that the notice-and-cure provision of the Agreement
   created a protected property interest in the $150,000 gift and the tax
   abatements.
          With respect to APA’s argument that the notice-and-cure provision
   of the Agreement created a property interest in the $150,000 gift, as
   explained above, the portion of the Agreement gifting APA $150,000 is illegal
   under the Texas Constitution as a gift of public funds. “A promise for breach
   of which the law neither gives a remedy nor otherwise recognizes a duty of
   performance by the promisor is often called a void contract,” and “such a
   promise is not a contract at all.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS §
   7 cmt. a (Am. L. Inst. 1981) (emphasis added); see also Watts v. Piligrim’s Pride

                                           11
Case: 21-10558        Document: 00517031891            Page: 12      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                        No. 21-10558

   Corp., No. 12-04-00082-CV, 2005 WL 2404111, at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler
   Sept. 30, 2005, no pet.) (“A void contract is no contract at all; it binds no one
   and is a mere nullity.”). Therefore, to the extent APA’s due process claims
   are based on a protected property interest in the $150,000 gift, the claims fail.
          Turning to APA’s argument that the notice-and-cure provision of the
   Agreement created a property interest in the tax abatements, even assuming
   arguendo that the “gift” provision can be severed from the Agreement and
   that APA has a property interest in the tax abatements, 7 APA’s due process
   and due course of law claims still fail. The purpose of due process is to
   “grant[] the aggrieved party the opportunity to present his case and have its
   merits fairly judged.” Lujan v. G & G Fire Sprinklers, Inc., 532 U.S. 189, 195
   (2001) (quoting Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 433 (1982)
   (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Supreme Court has explained that
   where “an ordinary breach-of-contract suit” can fully protect the interest,
   there is no due process claim. Id. at 196. Because “[Texas] law affords [APA]
   sufficient opportunity to pursue that claim in state court, we conclude that
   the [City’s termination of the Agreement] does not deprive [APA] of its
   claim for [tax abatements] without due process of law.” See id. at 195.
          For these reasons, taking APA’s pleaded facts as true, there is no
   constitutional violation by the City. See Whitley v. Hannah, 726 F.3d 631, 637
   (5th Cir. 2013).
                                  IV. Conclusion
          We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

          _____________________
          7
             It bears emphasis that there is no severability provision in the Agreement and
   APA has not argued the illegal provision dealing with the $150,000 gift is otherwise
   severable from the Agreement.

                                             12
Case: 21-10558     Document: 00517031891            Page: 13    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 21-10558

   Cory T. Wilson, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
          The majority concludes that the City’s “gift” to APA was improper
   for lack of consideration. With greatest respect for my esteemed colleagues,
   I read the underlying Agreement differently, and therefore dissent.
          The majority correctly points out that the Texas Constitution
   prohibits a city’s “gratuitous” payments to corporations.           See Tex.
   Const. art. III § 52(a). But a payment is not gratuitous if it “(1) serves a
   legitimate public purpose; and (2) affords a clear public benefit in return.”
   Tex. Mun. League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n,
   74 S.W.3d 377, 380, 383 (Tex. 2002) (citations omitted). And as the majority
   further recognizes, to determine whether such a payment “serves a
   legitimate public purpose,” the city must “(1) ensure that the [payment]’s
   predominant purpose is to accomplish a public purpose, not to benefit private
   parties; (2) retain public control over the funds to ensure that the public
   purpose is accomplished and to protect the public’s investment; and
   (3) ensure that the [city] receives a return benefit.” Id. at 383–84.
          The majority does not analyze the first two requirements. See ante at
   9 n.5. I briefly address each before turning to the third.

                                          I.

          It     seems    clear    that    the      Agreement’s     “predominant
   purpose . . . accomplish[ed] a public purpose.” Id. The Agreement states
   that the City approved it as a means toward further “Commercial/Industrial
   Development[.]” The Agreement sets forth obligations and benefits for both
   parties. APA was required, inter alia, (1) to make a $200,000 combined

                                          13
Case: 21-10558     Document: 00517031891            Page: 14   Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 21-10558

   capital investment to construct “Required Improvements”—that is,
   construction of a “laboratory and/or storage with infrastructure”; (2) to
   complete the Required Improvements within 15 months; and (3) to employ
   50 people within five years of relocating and completing the Required
   Improvements (with intermediate employment level goals before that). The
   City was obligated (1) to “gift” APA “$150,000 . . . for infrastructure” as
   part of APA’s “combined capital investment of at least $200,000.00” in the
   Required Improvements; and (2) to “grant to [APA] annual property tax
   abatements . . . for a period of ten . . . years[.]” These provisions—especially
   read in conjunction—show that the Agreement’s “predominant purpose”
   would “accomplish a public purpose.” See id. at 385.

                                         II.

          The Agreement also satisfies the second requirement by allowing the
   City to retain public control over the funds to ensure that the public purpose
   is accomplished and to protect the public’s investment. Specific to the
   “gift” at issue, the Agreement preserves the City’s ultimate control over
   how the $150,000 was to be spent by cabining the money’s uses to
   “infrastructure, access/egress, and utilities” related to APA’s Required
   Improvements. The Agreement also allows the City to inspect APA’s
   property “at any time . . . throughout the [Agreement’s] Term and the year
   following the Completion Date,” and to “audit the financial and business
   records” of APA “that relate to [APA’s] operations . . . at any time during
   the [Agreement’s] Term and for one . . . year thereafter[.]” And if APA
   failed to complete the Required Improvements in a timely manner—

                                         14
Case: 21-10558       Document: 00517031891             Page: 15      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                        No. 21-10558

   something that had to happen before the tax abatements would ever come
   into play—the City was entitled to terminate the Agreement. Read together,
   these provisions demonstrate that the City retained control over not only the
   tax abatements, but also the $150,000 payment at issue.

                                            III.

           Irrespective of the foregoing, the majority concludes that the
   Agreement’s lack of consideration is “fatal to APA’s lawsuit.” Ante at 6.
   The majority holds “that the City’s $150,000 payment was intended to be a
   gratuitous transfer” for two reasons: (A) the Agreement calls the $150,000
   payment a “gift,” and (B) the Agreement indicates no “consideration in
   exchange for the $150,000 gift[.]” Though I understand the straightforward
   logic of the holding, I do not read the Agreement to confer an illegal $150,000
   gratuitous transfer; instead, the payment was integral to the City’s inducing
   APA to develop the site at issue, relocate there, and employ City residents.
   In other words, a classic economic development deal. 1

                                             A.

           When interpreting a written contract, the plain language controls. In
   re Whataburger Restaurants LLC, 645 S.W.3d 188, 194 (Tex. 2022). But

           _____________________
           1
            The majority mischaracterizes my dissent as “public policy concern about not
   wanting to thwart economic development efforts[.]” Ante at 9 n.4. Not so.
   Notwithstanding the Agreement’s explicit purpose of “encouraging [land]
   development . . . and generating economic development and increased opportunities in
   [Mineral Wells],” I mention the Agreement’s nature only to provide context for the mutual
   promises made by the City and APA discussed herein.

                                              15
Case: 21-10558       Document: 00517031891              Page: 16       Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                         No. 21-10558

   “words must be construed in the context in which they are used[.]” Id.
   (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts must “examine and
   consider the entire writing in order to give effect to all the provisions of the
   contract so that none will be rendered meaningless.” Id. (citation omitted).
   Doing so in this case makes clear that the payment at issue is not actually
   “gratuitous” and thus does not traverse § 52(a) of the Texas Constitution.
           True enough, Section 2 of the Agreement states that “[APA] shall
   make a Capital Investment of no less than $200,000.00 in the aggregate for
   Required Improvements including $150,000.00 Gift from [the City] to [APA]
   for infrastructure for Land to accommodate its manufacturing business.”
   But Section 4 of the Agreement, to which the majority alludes in passing, if
   at all, 2 provides additional detail. That section refers to the $150,000
   payment as a “Grant” and specifies that the funds are “for infrastructure,
   access/egress, and utilities[.]”          Whatever the import of the differing
   monikers of gift/grant, it is clear that the $150,000 payment was to come with
   significant strings attached, i.e., mutual promises from APA: Use of those
   funds was restricted to installing utilities and other infrastructure that had to
   be completed—before the rest of the Agreement, with which the majority has

           _____________________
           2
            The majority quips that any return benefits to the City for the $150,000 payment
   are “[my] own invention given that they are found nowhere in the terms of the
   Agreement,” amounting to “ipse dixit” on my part. Ante at 9. But as quoted from the
   document itself above the line, the parties’ Agreement makes clear that the $150,000
   payment goes hand-in-glove with the City’s plan to entice APA to relocate, viz., it would
   immediately inure benefit to the City by assisting APA in the “installation of utilities of
   water, sewage, electric[,]”—and ultimately benefit the City by “encouraging
   redevelopment of the [Tax Abatement Reinvestment] Zone,” “generating economic
   development[,]” and “increased employment opportunities in the City.”

                                               16
Case: 21-10558         Document: 00517031891                 Page: 17        Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                             No. 21-10558

   no qualms—could be effectuated.                      Reading Sections 2 and 4 of the
   Agreement together, the City effectively outsourced to APA site preparation
   required for the facility’s integration into, inter alia, City services like
   utilities. And the $150,000 gift/grant was paired with the requirement that
   APA add a minimum of $50,000 of its own funds for infrastructure
   installation. Thus, the payment was not a mere gratuity to APA; the “gift”
   came with an expectation of significant return benefit to the City, via
   performance of specified obligations by APA. 3

                                                  B.
           The majority also concludes that the $150,000 gift/grant lacks any
   return consideration from APA—demonstrating that it is an impermissible
   gratuity. See ante at 8–9. But that conclusion requires us to decouple the
   $150,000 payment from APA’s construction of the Required Improvements,
   its required $50,000 minimum matching investment, the Agreement’s
   employment benchmarks, and the tax abatements. The Agreement does not
   support such a reading; instead, it plainly links the $150,000 gift/grant and
   the tax abatements as parts of a package by which the City sought to entice
   APA’s relocation to Mineral Wells.

           _____________________
            3
             By contrast, “to make a valid gift, . . . [t]he donor . . . must deliver, either actually
   or constructively, the thing given to the donee, releasing all dominion over the thing given and
   investing the donee with whatever dominion he possessed.” Gift, Black’s Law
   Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (quoting W.W. Thornton, A Treatise of the Law Relating to
   Gifts and Advancements 2–3 (1893) (emphasis added)). That the City failed to “release all
   dominion” over the $150,000 further suggests that the payment to APA was not wholly
   gratuitous, but instead was “a [part of the] contract and not a gift[.]” Id.

                                                   17
Case: 21-10558        Document: 00517031891            Page: 18   Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                        No. 21-10558

            Examining the Agreement in toto bears this out. APA only became
   eligible for the tax abatements if three things occurred: (1) timely completion
   of the Required Improvements, (2) “use of the [l]and” in accordance with
   the Agreement, and (3) APA’s remaining “in compliance with” the
   Agreement. While the City’s agreement to provide tax abatements was thus
   partly     “[i]n   return    for   [APA]’s    construction     of    the    Required
   Improvements,” the Agreement makes clear that the $150,000 gift/grant
   was likewise an integral part of the deal, as it facilitated construction of the
   “Required Improvements.” Put differently, the gift/grant was as much part
   of   the     consideration     the    City    offered    APA        to   make     this
   “Commercial/Industrial Development Project” happen as the tax
   abatements were.       The court should not invalidate the Agreement by
   dissecting interrelated requirements that compose a single, larger deal.
            Two basic principles of contract law support this view. First, courts
   generally do not weigh the sufficiency of consideration. Parker v. Dodge, 98
   S.W.3d 297, 301 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (“A court
   of law normally will not inquire into the adequacy of consideration supporting
   a contract.”) (citation omitted). The majority runs afoul of this principle by
   examining the Agreement’s provisions in isolation, weighing its terms with
   promise-by-promise granularity to hold that only the tax abatements are
   supported by consideration. See ante at 9 (“[T]he tax abatements are what
   APA was to receive in exchange for relocating.”).
            Second, it is well-settled that a single consideration is sufficient to
   support multiple promises bargained for in an agreement.                   Birdwell v.

                                            18
Case: 21-10558       Document: 00517031891             Page: 19      Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                        No. 21-10558

   Birdwell, 819 S.W.2d 223, 228 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991, writ denied);
   Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 80 cmt. a (1981) (“A
   single performance or return promise may thus furnish consideration for any
   number of promises.”). Thus, APA’s promise to relocate to Mineral Wells,
   i.e., to develop the site, build its facility, and employ specified numbers of
   employees, could properly support the City’s promises of not only the tax
   abatements but also the $150,000 gift/grant to defray a portion of the initial
   costs of site development. The Agreement could properly set forth a package
   deal, obligating both sides to do various things, in sequence. And, critically,
   our task is not to pass judgment on whether the bargain struck by the parties
   was a good one—the question is whether the City’s infrastructure gift/grant
   was supported by return obligations undertaken by APA or was merely
   “gratuitous.” The Agreement makes clear it was the former, not the latter.
           If the $150,000 “gift” from the City to APA stood alone, then clearly
   it would be improper, and I would readily join my esteemed colleagues. But
   because it does not, I would hold the parties to their bargain—to include the
   City’s gift/grant to APA to defray costs of site development. Cf. Texas
   Municipal League, 74 S.W.3d at 383–84. I therefore respectfully dissent. 4

          _____________________
          4
            Because I would hold the Agreement to have been permissible under Texas
   Municipal League, I also respectfully depart from the majority’s analysis of APA’s Texas
   Open Meetings Act and due process claims—both of which rest on the premise that the
   $150,000 payment at issue violates the Texas Constitution.

                                             19