Elizabeth C. Perez v. Sylvester Turner, Mayor, Karun Sreerama, Director of Public Works and Engineering, and the City of Houston

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas addresses claims challenging Houston's assessment, collection, and expenditure of drainage fees authorized under a city charter amendment later held invalid. The Court holds that Perez had standing to seek reimbursement of fees she paid and to pursue a taxpayer-based injunction concerning allegedly illegal expenditures, but concludes that her pleadings did not adequately overcome governmental immunity. The Court affirms dismissal while remanding to permit Perez to replead in light of intervening events.

Holdings

1. A claim challenging an ordinance is ripe when the ordinance is currently causing the plaintiff injury or a likely future injury; a prior final judgment declaring the ordinance or underlying charter amendment invalid is not a jurisdictional prerequisite.
2. A plaintiff who personally paid allegedly illegal government charges has a particularized injury sufficient to confer standing to seek reimbursement, even if success depends on proving the invalidity of the ordinance.
3. A taxpayer who alleges that a tax or fee was unauthorized by law and seeks to enjoin expenditure of the proceeds may invoke taxpayer standing without showing that the tax or fee is actually illegal as a prerequisite to standing.
4. A plaintiff's failure to establish that a challenged government action was unlawful does not ordinarily defeat standing when the plaintiff has alleged injury, causation, and redressability; instead, the failure may show that the plaintiff has not pleaded a viable claim capable of overcoming governmental immunity.
5. The Municipal Drainage Utility Systems Act does not preempt or diminish a home-rule municipality's authority to establish a drainage utility or impose authorized drainage charges; Perez therefore did not plead a viable illegality theory based on conflict between the Act and Houston's drainage-fee ordinance.
6. When the pleadings do not affirmatively negate jurisdiction and intervening events have materially changed the case, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Perez's claims were unripe because the charter amendment's invalidity had not been finally adjudicated when she filed suit.
2. Whether Perez had standing to seek reimbursement of drainage fees she personally paid.
3. Whether Perez had taxpayer standing to seek an injunction against expenditure of allegedly illegal drainage-fee proceeds.
4. Whether the merits of the alleged illegality of the drainage fee were issues of standing or instead matters relevant to overcoming governmental immunity.
5. Whether Perez pleaded a viable theory that the drainage-fee ordinance exceeded Houston's authority by conflicting with the Municipal Drainage Utility Systems Act.
6. Whether Perez should be allowed to replead in light of the 2018 charter amendment and other intervening events.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded