Date post: | 03-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | robert-wilonsky |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 22
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
1/22
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
2/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 2
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 followingreasons:
a. Plaintiff lacks a constitutionally protected property right or interest that has been
taken by the City.
b. The City has not deprived Plaintiff of its reasonable investment-backed
expectations.
c. The City has not denied Plaintiff all of its determinable fee simple property rights
or interests in the City.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
3/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 3
3. Plaintiffs common law fraud claimis invalid for the following reasons:
a. 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 followingreasons:
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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
4/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 4
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. Plaintiffs statutory fraud claim is invalid for the following reasons:
a. 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 followingreasons:
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.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
5/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 5
7. Plaintiffs request for attorneys fees is invalid for the following reasons:
a. The City is immune from a request for attorneys feesbecause there has been no
waiver of immunity.
8. Plaintiffs request for prejudgment and post judgment interest is invalidfor 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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
6/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 6
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 Plaintiffscomplete 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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
7/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 7
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 rightsor property interests for
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
8/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 8
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 Plaintiffsproperty 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 Plaintiffsalleged 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.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
9/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 9
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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
10/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 10
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.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
11/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 11
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.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
12/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 12
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.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
13/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 13
23. The City specially excepts to the allegations in paragraph 29.E of Plaintiffs
Petition wherein it alleges that the Citys representativeswere 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.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
14/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 14
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 in tent 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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
15/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 15
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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
16/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 16
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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
17/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 17
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 toidentify 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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
18/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 18
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:
paragraphs 23 (which incorporates paragraphs 1-22 by reference), 27 (which incorporates
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
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
19/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 19
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. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of laches.
3. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of waiver.
4. In the alternative, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff lacks capacity to bring
and/or maintain this action.
5. In the alternative, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff failed to mitigate its
damages.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
20/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 20
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. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of the parol evidence
rule.
8. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of Plaintiffs failure
to perform.
9. In the alternative, the City affirmatively states that Plaintiff failed to comply with
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. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of estoppel.
12. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of privilege and/or
justification.
13. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense that Plaintiffsclaims
are barred or limited by the terms of the Leases.
14. In the alternative, the City invokes the defense of contributory negligence.
15. In the alternative, the City affirmatively invokes the defense of statute of frauds.
16. The City affirmatively states that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust its administrative
remedies.
17. In the alternative, Plaintiffs claims are barred or limited by immunity from
liability.
8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
21/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 21
18. In the alternative, the Plaintiffs clams are barred or limited by the economic loss
rule.
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. ERNSTCITY ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS
By: s/ Christopher J. CasoCHRISTOPHER J. CASOSenior Assistant City AttorneyTexas State Bar No. 03969230PATRICIA M. DE LA GARZAExecutive Assistant City AttorneyTexas State Bar No. 138979001500 Marilla Street, 7DNDallas, Texas 75201Phone: (214) 670-3519Telecopier: (214) [email protected]@dallascityhall.com
MOSES, PALMER & HOWELL, L.L.P.
By: s/ Shayne D. Moses
SHAYNE D. MOSESTexas State Bar No. [email protected] A. PALMERTexas State Bar No. [email protected] D. HOWELLTexas State Bar No. 24002315
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]8/12/2019 Dallas Responds to Trinity East
22/22
CITYS ORIGINAL ANSWER PAGE 22
[email protected] & Gas Building309 West 7thStreet, Suite 815Fort Worth, Texas 76102(817) 255-9100
(817) 255-9199Fax
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 Facsimil e: 214-745-5390
Arthur J. AndersonWinstead, P.C.2728 N. Harwood, Suite 500Dallas, Texas 75201
Via Facsimil e: 817-420-8201
Jeffrey C. KingWinstead, P.C.777 Main Street, Suite 1100Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Attorneys for Plaintiff
s/ Christopher J. CasoCHRISTOPHER J. CASO
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]