State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; and Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

Summary

The Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a dispute concerning the State of Texas's termination of an office-space lease with 8317 Cross Park, LLC. The court held that sovereign immunity barred Cross Park's breach-of-lease claims against the State, the Texas Facilities Commission, and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, and that Cross Park failed to plead a viable ultra vires claim against Rolland Niles. The court held that Cross Park sufficiently pleaded a prospective ultra vires claim against Mike Novak based on alleged violations of Texas Facilities Commission regulations, reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. Chapter 114 does not waive sovereign immunity for Cross Park's breach-of-lease claim. The State was the only party to the lease, the State is not a state agency as defined by Chapter 114, and TFC and HHSC did not enter into the lease.
2. Cross Park failed to sufficiently allege a viable ultra vires claim against Niles because Niles's determination of the availability of funds under Section 2167.101 was discretionary, not a purely ministerial act.
3. Cross Park sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim against Novak based on alleged violations of TFC regulations governing lease cancellation requests and notice to the Governor's Office. The court did not decide whether Novak violated the lease itself.
4. Cross Park's UDJA claims against the State, TFC, HHSC, and Niles were barred because the requested declaration concerning legislative appropriations would not actually resolve the underlying controversies. The court did not reach the UDJA claim against Novak.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Cross Park's breach-of-lease claim against the State, TFC, and HHSC was barred by sovereign immunity and whether Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code waived that immunity.
2. Whether Cross Park sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim against Niles based on his failure to certify that funds were available for the lease.
3. Whether Cross Park sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim against Novak based on alleged violations of TFC lease-termination regulations.
4. Whether Cross Park's declaratory-judgment claim concerning legislative appropriations was barred by sovereign immunity or failed to present a declaration that would actually resolve a justiciable controversy.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded