You are on page 1of 22

FILED DALLAS COUNTY 3/9/2014 4:02:21 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS DISTRICT CLERK

CAUSE NO. DC-14-01443 TRINITY EAST ENERGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Defendant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT

192ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER TO THE HONORABLE COURT: COMES NOW, Defendant City of Dallas (the City), in the above-styled and numbered cause, and files its original answer to Plaintiffs most recently filed petition (Plaintiffs Petition). I. GENERAL DENIAL The City generally denies each and every, all and singular, Plaintiffs allegations contained in Plaintiffs Original Petition, and all amending petitions, and demands strict proof thereof by a preponderance of the credible evidence. II. PLEAS TO THE JURISDICTION A. claim. 1. a. Plaintiffs breach of contract claim is invalid for the following reasons: Governmental immunity. The City has governmental immunity from an invalid

Plaintiff has not alleged and cannot allege that the City breached a contract. The

only contracts that Plaintiff asserts that the City has breached are the two expired oil and gas leases between Plaintiff and the City (the Leases). Plaintiff has failed to assert any facts that

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 1

the City has breached the Leases. Without any assertion of facts demonstrating a breach of contract there can be no waiver of immunity for a breach of contract claim. b. The Leases are not contracts for goods and services to the City as required by

section 271.153 of the Texas Local Government Code. Without a contract for goods or services, there can be no waiver of immunity for a breach of contract claim under section 271.153. c. The Leases were not entered into by the City in its proprietary capacity and the

subjects of the Leases are not proprietary functions. In addition, the proprietary/governmental dichotomy is not applicable to the claim or to the City. d. The Leases did not obligate the City to provide Plaintiff with drill site locations.

To the contrary, the Leases were amended so as to expressly provide that a specific use permit (SUP) is required before the land can be used for oil and gas drilling, that a decision on an application for a [SUP] is a police power that cannot be contracted away and that Lessee understands that the proposed drill sites are on park land and/or within the flood plain where drilling is not permitted unless authorized by the City Council. 2. Plaintiffs inverse condemnation claim is invalid for the following reasons:

a.

Plaintiff lacks a constitutionally protected property right or interest that has been

taken by the City. b. expectations. c. The City has not denied Plaintiff all of its determinable fee simple property rights The City has not deprived Plaintiff of its reasonable investment-backed

or interests in the City.

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 2

3. a.

Plaintiffs common law fraud claim is invalid for the following reasons:

The City is immune from a common law fraud claim because there has been no

waiver of immunity. b. The Leases were not entered into by the City in its proprietary capacity and the

subjects of the Leases are not proprietary functions. In addition, the proprietary/governmental dichotomy is not applicable to the claim or to the City. c. Plaintiff has not asserted and cannot assert any facts that the City engaged in

fraudulent conduct. d. Plaintiff has not asserted and cannot assert any facts that: i) there were material

representations by the City; ii) they were false or that the City knew were false; iii) they were made recklessly without any knowledge of their truth and as a positive assertion; iv) they were made with the intent that they be acted upon; v) Plaintiff acted upon the misrepresentations; and vi) Plaintiff suffered injury and damage. 4. Plaintiffs fraud by nondisclosure claim is invalid for the following reasons:

a.

The City is immune from a fraud by nondisclosure claim because there has been

no waiver of immunity. b. The Leases were not entered into by the City in its proprietary capacity and the

subjects of the Leases are not proprietary functions. In addition, the proprietary/governmental dichotomy is not applicable to the claim or to the City. c. Plaintiff has not asserted and cannot assert any facts that: i) the City failed to

disclose facts to Plaintiff; ii) the City had a duty to disclose those facts; iii) the facts were material to the Leases; iv) the City knew Plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover; v) the Citys representatives were deliberately silent when they had a duty to speak; vi) by failing
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 3

to disclose the facts the City intended to induce Plaintiff to pay the City $19 million; vii) Plaintiff relied on the disclosures; and viii) Plaintiff was injured as a result of acting without that knowledge. 5. a. Plaintiffs statutory fraud claim is invalid for the following reasons:

The City is immune from a statutory fraud claim because there has been no

waiver of immunity. b. The Leases were not entered into by the City in its proprietary capacity and the

subjects of the Leases are not proprietary functions. In addition, the proprietary/governmental dichotomy is not applicable to the claim or to the City. c. Plaintiff has not asserted and cannot assert any facts that the City falsely

represented past or existing material facts to Plaintiff or that the City falsely promised to do an act. 6. Plaintiffs negligent misrepresentation claim is invalid for the following reasons:

a.

The City is immune from a negligent misrepresentation claim because there has

been no waiver of immunity. b. The Leases were not entered into by the City in its proprietary capacity and the

subjects of the Leases are not proprietary functions. In addition, the proprietary/governmental dichotomy is not applicable to the claim or to the City. c. Plaintiff has not asserted and cannot assert any facts that: i) the City provided

false information; ii) the City failed to exercise reasonable care; iii) that Plaintiff justifiably relied on the information; and that Plaintiff suffered damages.

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 4

7. a.

Plaintiffs request for attorneys fees is invalid for the following reasons:

The City is immune from a request for attorneys fees because there has been no

waiver of immunity. 8. Plaintiffs request for prejudgment and post judgment interest is invalid for the following reasons:

a.

The City is immune from a request for interest because there has been no waiver

of immunity for any of Plaintiffs claims. b. The Leases were not entered into by the City in its proprietary capacity and the

subjects of the Leases are not proprietary functions. In addition, the proprietary/governmental dichotomy is not applicable to the claim or to the City. B. Statutory prerequisites to suit. This Court lacks jurisdiction over this case

because Plaintiff has failed to seek to drill in locations other than the ones identified in Plaintiffs applications for specific use permits (the SUPs) that were denied by the City. In addition or in the alternative, Plaintiff failed to provide proper notice of each claim, cause of action, or remedy as required by contract, ordinance, and/or statute. C. Ripeness. The Court lacks jurisdiction of this case because it is not ripe for

adjudication because Plaintiff has failed to seek zoning approval for other sites within or without the City in which to drill and produce oil, gas, and related minerals from the leased premises and, therefore, failed to obtain a final decision from the City or any nearby city on the extent to which Plaintiff could drill and produce oil, gas, and related minerals from the leased premises. III. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 1. The City specially excepts to Plaintiffs Petition in its entirety because Plaintiff

has failed to alleged sufficient facts to show that there is a waiver of immunity from Plaintiffs
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 5

breach of contract claim. In connection with this special exception, the City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days to allege sufficient facts showing that there is a waiver of immunity from Plaintiffs breach of contract claim. 2. The City specially excepts to Plaintiffs Petition in its entirety because there is no

waiver of immunity from Plaintiffs fraud and negligence claims. In connection with this special exception, the City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days to allege sufficient facts showing that there is a waiver of immunity from Plaintiffs fraud and negligence claims. 3. The City specially excepts to paragraph 5 of Plaintiffs Petition where it seeks

discovery under Level 3 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure for the reason that Level 2 is the more appropriate level of discovery in this case. In connection with this special exception, the City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days to state that this case will be tried under Level 2 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. The City specially excepts to Plaintiffs complete failure to allege the maximum

amount of damages claimed throughout Plaintiffs Petition, as required by rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In connection with this special exception, the City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify the maximum amount of damages it seeks to recover from the City. 5. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 21.B of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the Plaintiff performed or tendered performance according to the

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 6

terms of the Lease Agreements for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how it allegedly performed under the Lease Agreements and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how it has allegedly performed or tendered performance under the Lease Agreements. 6. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 21.C of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the Defendant breached the Lease Agreements for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the City allegedly breached the Leases and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify the conduct of the City that Plaintiff claims allegedly breached the Leases. 7. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 21.D of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the Plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the breach for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege facts showing how it has allegedly been damaged as a result of the alleged breach of the Leases, and the type and amount of each type of damage and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how it has allegedly been damaged as a result of the alleged breach of the Leases. 8. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition

wherein it alleges that the City has taken all of Plaintiffs property rights or property interests for

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 7

the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify what alleged property rights and/or property interests were allegedly taken or damaged by the City and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify Plaintiffs property rights and/or property interests that were allegedly taken by the City. 9. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition

wherein it alleges that the City has taken Plaintiffs property rights and/or property interests for a public use for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege what alleged public use the City made of Plaintiffs alleged property rights and/or property interests and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify the alleged public use that the City has allegedly made of Plaintiffs alleged property rights and/or property interests. 10. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs Petition

wherein it alleges that the City had acquisitory intent in allegedly damaging or taking Plaintiffs property rights and/or property interests for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege what this acquisitory intent allegedly was and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining it and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify the alleged acquisitory intent that the City had in the alleged taking or damaging of Plaintiffs alleged property rights and/or property interests.

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 8

11.

The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraphs 27-32 of Plaintiffs

Petition on the grounds that they fail to assert facts showing that the claim for inverse taking is a valid claim and therefore fails to establish that the Court has jurisdiction. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining it and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff has a valid takings claim. 12. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 28.A of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City made material representations to Trini ty to induce Trinity to enter into the Lease Agreements for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege what those alleged material representations were and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify what alleged material representations the City allegedly made to Plaintiff to allegedly induce Plaintiff to enter into the Leases. 13. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 28.B of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the material representations that the City allegedly made were false for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how those alleged material representations were allegedly false and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the Citys alleged material representations were allegedly false. 14. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 28.C(1) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City knew that the material representations were false for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the City allegedly knew these alleged material

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 9

representations were allegedly false and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the City allegedly knew that the alleged material representations were allegedly false. 15. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 28.C(2) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City made the material representations recklessly without any knowledge of their truth and as a positive assertion for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the City allegedly made these alleged representations without any alleged knowledge of their truth and as an alleged positive assertion and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the City allegedly made the alleged material representations recklessly without any alleged knowledge of their truth and as an alleged positive assertion. 16. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 28.D of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City made the material representations with the intent that they be acted upon for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the City allegedly made these alleged representations with the alleged intent that they be acted upon and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the City allegedly made the alleged material representations with the alleged intent that they be acted upon.

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 10

17.

The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 28.E of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff acted on the material representations for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how Plaintiff allegedly acted on the alleged material representations and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff allegedly acted on the alleged material representations. 18. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 28.F of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff suffered injury and damages as a result of the alleged representations for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how Plaintiff has suffered injury and damages as a result of the alleged material representations and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff allegedly has suffered injury and damages as a result of the alleged material representations. 19. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.A of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City failed to disclose facts to Plaintiff for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege what alleged facts the City allegedly failed to disclose to Plaintiff and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify what alleged facts the City allegedly failed to disclose to Plaintiff.

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 11

20.

The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.B of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City had a duty to disclose facts to Plaintiff for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege what alleged duty the City had to disclose alleged facts to Plaintiff and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify what alleged duty the City had to disclose alleged facts to Plaintiff and what alleged facts were required to be disclosed to Plaintiff. 21. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.C of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the facts were material to the Lease Agreements for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the alleged facts were allegedly material to the Lease Agreements and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the alleged facts were allegedly material to the Lease Agreements. 22. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.D of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City knew that Plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover the facts for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the City allegedly knew that Plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover the alleged facts and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how that the City allegedly knew that Plaintiff did not have an equal opportunity to discover the alleged facts.

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 12

23.

The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.E of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the Citys representatives were deliberately silent when they had the duty to speak for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the Citys representatives were allegedly deliberately silent when they allegedly had the duty to speak and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the Citys representatives were allegedly deliberately silent when they allegedly had the duty to speak. 24. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.F of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City intended to induce Plaintiff to pay $19 million for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how the City allegedly intended to induce Plaintiff to pay $19 million and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the City allegedly intended to induce Plaintiff to pay $19 million. 25. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.G of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff relied on the Citys nondisclosure for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how Plaintiff allegedly relied on the Citys alleged nondisclosure and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff allegedly relied on the Citys alleged nondisclosure.

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 13

26.

The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.H of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff was injured for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to allege how Plaintiff allegedly was injured and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff was allegedly injured. 27. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Petition

wherein it alleges that the Citys actions were taken with the requisite mental intent for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to state what requisite mental intent the City allegedly had in connection with the its actions and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify what requisite mental intent the City allegedly had in connection with its actions. 28. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs Petition

wherein it alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages for the reason that such damages are not authorized against a municipality pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Section 101.024. In connection with this special exception, the City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that the Plaintiff be ordered to replead its cause of action within a reasonable time in conformity with the courts ruling hereon. 29. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 34(1) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City falsely represented past or existing material facts for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify what alleged past or existing material facts the City allegedly falsely represented to Plaintiff and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 14

notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify what alleged past or existing material facts the City allegedly falsely represented to Plaintiff. 30. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 34(1)(B) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff relied on the false representations for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how Plaintiff allegedly relied on the alleged false representations and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff allegedly relied on the alleged false representations. 31. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 34(2) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City falsely promised to do an act for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify what act the City allegedly falsely promised to do and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify what act the City allegedly falsely promised to do. 32. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 34(2)(A) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the false promise was material for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how that alleged false promise was material and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 15

Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how that alleged false promise was allegedly material. 33. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 34(2)(B) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the false promise was made with the intention of not fulfilling it for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how the alleged false promise was allegedly made with the alleged intention of not fulfilling it and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the alleged false promise was allegedly made with the alleged intention of not fulfilling it. 34. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 34(2)(C) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the false promise was made to Plaintiff for the purpose of inducing Plaintiff to enter into the Lease Agreements for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how the alleged false promise was allegedly made for the alleged purpose of inducing Plaintiff to enter into the Lease Agreements and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the alleged false promise was allegedly made for the alleged purpose of inducing Plaintiff to enter into the Lease Agreements. 35. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 34(2)(D) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff relied on the false promise for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how the Plaintiff allegedly relied on the alleged false promise and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 16

City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff allegedly relied on the alleged false promise. 36. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 38(A) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City provided information to Plaintiff for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify what information the City allegedly provided to Plaintiff and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify what information the City allegedly provided to Plaintiff. 37. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 38(B) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the information provided to Plaintiff was false for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how the alleged information allegedly provided by the City was allegedly false and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining it and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the alleged information allegedly provided by the City was allegedly false. 38. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 38(C) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that the City did not exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how the City allegedly did not exercise reasonable care or competence in allegedly obtaining or communicating the alleged information and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 17

an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how the City allegedly did not exercise reasonable care or competence in allegedly obtaining or communicating the information. 39. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 38(D) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff justifiably relied on the information for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how Plaintiff allegedly justifiably relied on the alleged information and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff allegedly justifiably relied on the alleged information. 40. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 38(E) of Plaintiffs

Petition wherein it alleges that Plaintiff suffered damages proximately caused by its reliance on the false information for the reason that Plaintiffs Petition fails to identify how Plaintiff allegedly suffered damages proximately caused by its alleged reliance on the alleged false information and, therefore, fails to give the City reasonable notice of the claims being asserted against it. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to separately specify how Plaintiff allegedly suffered damages proximately caused by its alleged reliance on the alleged false information. 41. The City specially excepts to the following paragraphs of Plaintiffs Petition: 27 (which incorporates

paragraphs 23 (which incorporates paragraphs 1-22 by reference),

paragraphs 1-26 by reference), 33 (which incorporates paragraphs 1-32 by reference), 37 (which incorporates paragraphs 1-36 by reference); and 40 (which incorporates paragraphs 1-40 by

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 18

reference), on the ground that by incorporating fact and law allegations numerous times these paragraphs suffer from the same deficiencies as the paragraphs that they seek to incorporate and which are the subject of the Citys individual special exceptions. The City requests that the Court enter an order sustaining this special exception and that Plaintiff be ordered to replead within 30 days so as to state that any such incorporation is subject to the Courts ruling on each individual paragraph which the has been specially excepted to by the City. IV. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES The City affirmatively pleads the following defenses to the extent they are applicable, and reserves the right to plead additional affirmative defenses. 1. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of governmental

immunity and would show that it is a municipal corporation organized and existing as a political subdivision and a unit of government of the State of Texas, and a home rule city under the home rule amendment of the Constitution of the State of Texas and Tex. Rev. Stat. Ann. art. 1175.2. Governmental immunity prohibits this suit against the City because the City enjoys governmental immunity from the Plaintiffs invalid claims. 2. 3. 4. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of laches. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of waiver. In the alternative, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff lacks capacity to bring

and/or maintain this action. 5. damages. In the alternative, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff failed to mitigate its

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 19

6.

In the alternative, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff failed to give proper

notice of claims as required by the City Charter and applicable statutes and ordinances. 7. rule. 8. to perform. 9. In the alternative, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff failed to comply with In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of Plaintiffs failure In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of the parol evidence

the requirements set forth in the Leases. The failure to comply with the requirements is a waiver, release, and/or failure of condition precedents. 10. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense that Plaintiff failed to

give timely and proper presentment as required by Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. 11. 12. justification. 13. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense that Plaintiffs claims In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of estoppel. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of privilege and/or

are barred or limited by the terms of the Leases. 14. 15. 16. remedies. 17. liability. In the alternative, Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited by immunity from In the alternative, the City invokes the defense of contributory negligence. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of statute of frauds. The City affirmatively states that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 20

18. rule.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs clams are barred or limited by the economic loss

PRAYER Wherefore, Defendant City of Dallas prays that Plaintiff take nothing by this suit, that this suit is dismissed with prejudice and that Defendant be granted all other relief to which it is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted, WARREN M. S. ERNST CITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS

By:

s/ Christopher J. Caso CHRISTOPHER J. CASO Senior Assistant City Attorney Texas State Bar No. 03969230 PATRICIA M. DE LA GARZA Executive Assistant City Attorney Texas State Bar No. 13897900 1500 Marilla Street, 7DN Dallas, Texas 75201 Phone: (214) 670-3519 Telecopier: (214) 670-0622 chris.caso@dallascityhall.com patricia.medrano@dallascityhall.com

MOSES, PALMER & HOWELL, L.L.P. By: s/ Shayne D. Moses SHAYNE D. MOSES Texas State Bar No. 14578980 smoses@mph-law.com DAVID A. PALMER Texas State Bar No. 00794416 dpalmer@mph-law.com TIMOTHY D. HOWELL Texas State Bar No. 24002315
PAGE 21

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

thowell@mph-law.com Oil & Gas Building 309 West 7th Street, Suite 815 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 (817) 255-9100 (817) 255-9199 Fax

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CITY OF DALLAS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on the 9th day of March, 2014, a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served via the Dallas County District Clerks e-filing system in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21(a), and also as indicated below: Via Facsimile: 214-745-5390 Arthur J. Anderson Winstead, P.C. 2728 N. Harwood, Suite 500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Via Facsimile: 817-420-8201 Jeffrey C. King Winstead, P.C. 777 Main Street, Suite 1100 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Attorneys for Plaintiff s/ Christopher J. Caso CHRISTOPHER J. CASO

CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER

PAGE 22

You might also like