Data Foundry, Inc. v. City of Austin, Texas

Summary

Data Foundry, Inc. v. City of Austin, Texas, 620 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. 2021): A ratepayer challenging municipal utility rates as unreasonable, excessive, discriminatory, or confiscatory has standing based on the concrete financial injury of being required to pay allegedly illegal rates, even if other ratepayers suffer the same injury. The Texas Supreme Court rejected prior case law requiring a ratepayer to allege an injury distinct from other ratepayers, holding that the personal obligation to pay an allegedly improper rate satisfies the particularized-injury requirement for standing. The court also held that issues of exclusive jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies were not properly before the court of appeals on a Rule 91a motion that was granted solely on standing grounds, and remanded all claims for further development.

Holdings

1. A ratepayer who alleges that it must pay an allegedly illegal rate suffers a concrete and particularized injury sufficient to establish standing, even if other ratepayers suffer the same injury. Financial harm from paying allegedly unreasonable, excessive, discriminatory, or confiscatory rates is a particularized injury.
2. The exclusive jurisdiction issue is distinct from standing and was not properly before the court of appeals because the trial court did not rule on it and the record was not developed. The court of appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of those claims on that basis.
3. The court of appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of the discrimination claims because the trial court did not rule on that ground and the City did not assert alternative grounds for affirmance. The issue was not properly before the court of appeals.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Data Foundry alleged a particularized injury sufficient to confer standing to challenge the City's electric utility rates.
2. Whether the court of appeals properly dismissed Data Foundry's claims challenging the rates as unreasonable and excessive on the ground that the City has exclusive jurisdiction over unbundling decisions.
3. Whether the court of appeals properly affirmed the dismissal of Data Foundry's discrimination claims on the ground that they had no basis in law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded