Court Opinion

ID: 9389242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 10:07:20.216118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.073804
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                         JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 20, 2023

                                     NO. 03-22-00637-CV

  Officials Acting in Their Official Capacities for the City of Austin Development Services
  Department: Denise Lucas, in her Official Capacity as Director; Rick Holloway, in his
   Official Capacity as Assistant Director; David Chapman, in his Official Capacity as
    Development Services Division Manager; Mario Garcia, in his Official Capacity as
     Environmental Compliance Supervisor; Brian Eagan, in his Official Capacity as
    Environmental Compliance Specialist Senior; Robert Jason Crouch, in his Official
            Capacity as Environmental Compliance Specialist Senior, Appellants

                                                v.

                    Austin Nightlife, LLC d/b/a Summit Lounge, Appellee

         APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
                BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, SMITH, AND JONES
           AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART –
                        OPINION BY JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order denying the City Officials’ plea to the jurisdiction

signed by the trial court on September 21, 2022. Having reviewed the record and the parties’

arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the portion of the order as to

Austin Nightlife’s claim that the City Officials acted ultra vires in requiring Summit Lounge to

obtain a temporary modification of its permit and sound impact plan in order to be authorized to

use extended 85-decibel hours during the spring festival season. Therefore, the Court affirms

that portion of the trial court’s interlocutory order. The Court further holds that there was
reversible error in the portions of the order as to Austin Nightlife’s claim concerning its status as

a Warehouse District venue, and its claim concerning whether citations were issued or caused

to be issued by an “accountable official.” Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s

interlocutory order as to those claims and renders judgment dismissing those claims for lack of

jurisdiction. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court

and in the court below.