2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015), which held that same sex couples may exercise their fundamental right to marry in all States, and that that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character. Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 681, 135 S.Ct. 2000bb-1(c) (West 2019). Original music by Dan Powell and Marion Lozano . 2009); Turner v. Robinson, 534 S.W.3d 115, 12526 (Tex. 2014-61812. See Emmett, 459 S.W.3d at 587. We disagree. to register your account in order to view or print (with the unofficial watermark) copies online. In this interlocutory appeal, 1 the City of Houston appeals the denial of its motion for summary judgment contending that governmental immunity shielded it from the lawsuit filed by Appellees, Catrennia Foreman Sauls, individually and as representative of the estate of her late . 2004). 2675 (placing same-sex couples in a second-tier marriage without federal benefits demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects). Court/County. Harris Cnty. Because an ultra vires suit is, for all practical purposes, a suit against the governmental entity, relief is limited. information contained in this site was valid at the time of posting. The case was eventually remanded back to state court on August 28, 2014. 1st Floor Houston, TX 77002. Through a series of opinions following Windsor,15 the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses require States to grant same-sex married couples the same legal rights, benefit, and responsibilities as different-sex married couples. See Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Ga., U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1737, 207 L.Ed.2d 218 (2020). If a court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over claims, the court cannot rule on the merits of the claims and must dismiss the claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or, if possible, the court may transfer the claims to a court that has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims. 2-07-032-CV, 2007 WL 2460329, at *3 (Tex. Appellants assert the following as issues on appeal: I. 2584. Civil/Family Post Trial . 2015) (stating that Without jurisdiction, we may not address the merits of the case); Kormanik v. Seghers, 362 S.W.3d 679, 693 (Tex. Another method of waiving governmental immunity is to assert an ultra vires claim based on actions taken without legal authority. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372. Code Ann. See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372. Instead, only when these improvident actions are unauthorized does an official shed the cloak of the sovereign and act ultra vires. Id. When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts with supporting evidence, our standard of review mirrors that of a traditional summary judgment: we consider all of the evidence relevant to the jurisdictional issue in the light most favorable to the nonmovant to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Univ. We're sorry for the inconvenience but Javascript is required Only when these improvident actions are unauthorized does an official shed the cloak of the sovereign and act ultra vires. Two years later, in 2017, the Court addressed an Arkansas law that listed a birth mother's different-sex spouse on their child's birth certificate, but not a birth mother's same-sex spouse. In their Original Petition and Application for Temporary Restraining Order, Application for Temporary Injunction, and Application for Permanent Injunction, appellants allege that they are Houston taxpayers and qualified voters, that Mayor Parker's directive to the City to offer benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees who are married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage is a violation of Texas Family Code 6.204, Texas Constitution Article I, 32, and Article II, 22 of the City of Houston Charter. Appellants sought unspecified actual damages as well as temporary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the City from providing these benefits. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. DUE TO COVID-19, MANY OF YOU ARE PART OF THE VULNERABLE POPULATION, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE OLDER THAN 65 YEARS OF AGE, SUFFERING WITH UNDERLYING HEALTH CONDITIONS, SUCH AS HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE, DIABETES, OBESITY, ASTHMA, OR WHOSE IMMUNE SYSTEM IS COMPROMISED DUE CHEMOTHERAPY FOR CANCER OR ANY OTHER CONDITION REQUIRING SUCH THERAPY. App.Fort Worth Aug. 31, 2007, no pet.) Houston, TX 77002, Free Wi-Fi now available at this location. b. Aug. 29, 2014) (Lake, J.) 9. * A late filing drop box is located on the outside wall (to the left of the front entrance) of the County Civil Courthouse Building. Contact Laura Goolsby . the Harris County Justice Courts are not allowed to give legal advice. In a decision dated June 30, 2017, the Texas Supreme Court reversed our decision, holding that the case should be remanded to the trial court so it could consider the impact of both Obergefell and DeLeon on appellants' claims. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. (2) right or claim to any legal protection, benefit, or responsibility asserted as a result of a marriage between persons of the same sex or a civil union in this state or in any other jurisdiction. 3-1-1 or (713) 837-0311. Show entries. Moreover, Harris County 2010) ([W]hen the validity of ordinances or statutes is challenged, the [U]DJA waives immunity to the extent it requires relevant governmental entities be made parties.) (emphasis in original); City of McKinney v. Hank's Rest. The story of "Phantom of the Opera's" meteoric rise and bittersweet closing. Houston, TX 77002 Consequently, appellants lack standing to request the trial court to impose retrospective monetary relief ordering any claw back of public funds already spent. Harris County Clerk Case Summary. establish paternity and order child support payments through the Texas Child Support 37.006(b); Tex. The UDJA is a remedial statute designed to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, or other legal relations. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 370; see Tex. County Civil Courts. If the trial court correctly determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, then this court should affirm this ruling and vacate that part of the order in which the trial court addressed the merits. Methods of Payment Id. Appellants argue that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to intrude upon state-court rulings and that the Freeman injunction was void. Tex. not intended as legal advice. The City of South Houston Courts accepts payments in: money order, cashier checks, debit card, credit card (Visa and MasterCard), NO personal checks. Moreover, the UDJA does not confer jurisdiction where none exists. We are still actively accepting mail and eFilings for the County Civil Courts through existing service providers. The County Clerk's Office records and maintains the records of Commissioners Court, the Probate Courts, and the County Civil Courts at Law. (832) 927-5800 Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 67980, 135 S.Ct. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 508 S.W.3d at 24243. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 9. MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY , Click graphic above for Municipal Courts Weddings info, Click graphic above for Safe Harbor Court info, Click graphic above for Passport Application info, Click graphic above for Veterans Court info, Herbert W. Gee Municipal Courthouse (832) 927-5800 A summary of court costs, service fees and issuance fees is available on this site, The jurisdictional limit for the County Civil Courts at Law starts at $200.00 and cannot exceed $250,000.00. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's decision. App.Houston [14th Dist.] Click on a week day below to view that particular docket. Plaintiffs Pidgeon and Hicks bring suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, asking this Court to declare that the mayor's directive of November 19, 2013, violated state law, and to declare further that the mayor and city officials have no authority to disregard state law merely because it conflicts with their personal beliefs of what the U.S. Constitution or federal law requires. To provide feedback regarding the officer who issued your citation, contact: Other Available Options Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 374 (Tex. Locations of Courts in Houston Harris County 11th Civil District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline Street 9th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (832) 927-2600 2014); Curry, 434 S.W.3d at 820. The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. Document Portal 2015), rev'd sub nom. In this interlocutory appeal, the City of Houston appeals the trial court's order denying the City's motion for summary judgment based on lack of jurisdiction. In 2001, voters petitioned and approved an amendment to Article II of the Houston City Charter, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: Except as required by State or Federal law, the City of Houston shall not provide employment benefits, including health care, to persons other than employees, their legal spouses and dependent children. Rules and guidelines on how to handle any of your court business, including instructions on how to reset and pay for your case(s), as well as downloadable forms, are available at no charge on our website. 15. You further authorize CourtCaseFinder.com to conduct a person search to identify preliminary results of the search subject you entered. 2012, no pet.). Appellants fail to plead and prove that Mayor Parker acted outside of her legal authority. In their motion, appellants argued that the only issues for the trial court to resolve were questions of law: (1) Whether the city can defend its present-day defiance of section 6.204(c)(2) by relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Obergefell and Pavan v. Smith, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2075, 198 L.Ed.2d 636 (2017); and (2) Whether the city can defend its pre-Obergefell defiance of section 6.204(c)(2) by relying on then-mayor Parker's personal beliefs that the statute was unconstitutional. Appellants also argued in their motion that they were entitled to an injunction requiring Mayor Turner and the City to claw back public funds that they previously spent in violation of Section 6.204(c)(2). Additionally, as analyzed, supra, appellants are not entitled to any injunctive relief from the City for an ultra vires claim from which the City is immune. See Zachry Const. At the Criminal Justice Center at 1201 Franklin, First Floor, Suite 1026. Whether the Mayor or City arguably violated state or local law in providing spousal benefits to same-sex spouses also is legally irrelevant if those laws were unconstitutional and unenforceable under Windsor, De Leon, or later Obergefell, Pavan, and Bostock as well as the United States Constitution. ; see Treto v. Treto, No. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. Additionally, appellants provide no basis to strip spousal benefits from all employees of the City. In its judgment, the majority affirms the trial court's order granting the Hybrid Motion. Res. A suit brought against an employee in his official capacity actually seeks to impose liability against the governmental unit rather than on the individual specifically named and is, in all respects other than name, a suit against the entity. See Tex. South Houston 1018 Dallas South Houston, TX 77587 City Hall (Main Line) Phone: 713-947-7700 A transmission report by the e-filer to the e-filers EFSP shall be prima facie evidence of the date and time of the transmission. This case was filed in Harris County District Courts, Harris County District Courts located in Harris, Texas. See Parker v. Pidgeon, 477 S.W.3d 353, 355 (Tex. 2675. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204. Ticket Reply Form, Plea 4. 17. Clear Filters. Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise. Appellants also do not contest by pleading or otherwise that under the Houston City Charter, art. Question. 2018) (citing Reata Constr. Appellants also seek a temporary and permanent injunction requiring the mayor and the city to claw back all public funds that they illegally spent on spousal benefits for the homosexual partners of city employees. It is unclear what appellants mean by the phrase claw back. Appellants do not identify what funds would have to be recovered by the City and from whom reimbursement would have to be sought. As clerks, they have the responsibility of: The department is responsible for maintaining the filed records for each County Civil Court case. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit noted that both sides now agree that the injunction appealed from is correct in light of Obergefell. Id. Official-capacity suits generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which [the official] is an agent. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 16566, 105 S.Ct. Consequently, sovereign immunity will bar an otherwise proper [U]DJA claim that has the effect of establishing a right to relief against the State for which the Legislature has not waived sovereign immunity. Id. See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 37273. Produced by Sydney Harper and Eric Krupke. On July 28, 2015, our court, in a per curiam opinion, reversed the trial court's temporary injunction and remanded for proceedings consistent with Obergefell and De Leon. Id. As such, appellants' request for injunctive relief was properly dismissed. Prac. Appellants filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court, which was granted. (mem. While the Pidgeon Parties allege that the Freeman suit was collusive, there was no question but the injunction was in effect and had not been invalidated by any court. at 66869, 135 S.Ct. You as the Petitioner must prepare the petition on your own or Thus, the relevant date for jurisdiction to be determined is October 22, 2014. a. confirmation will include the date and time the County Clerk considers the document to have been filed. Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in Windsor, Obergefell, Pavan, and Bostock, discussed infra, the declaratory relief sought by appellants in this case presumes that Section 22 of the Houston City Charter, Section 6.204(c) of the Texas Family Code and Article I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution remain valid and enforceable. You must request DSC on your arraignment setting. Case Summary. Process servers are not required to e-file. Appellants analogize this to Harris v. McRae, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that, [a]lthough the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference with freedom of choice in the context of certain personal decisions, it does not confer an entitlement to such funds as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom. 448 U.S. 297, 31718, 100 S.Ct. See Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 22627 (Tex. 2019). 2020). 37, 34 L.Ed.2d 65 (1972), overruled by Obergefell, 576 U.S. at 675, 135 S.Ct. Appellants, who identify themselves as Houston residents and taxpayers, oppose Mayor Parker's directive and seek to enjoin Mayor Turner and the City from continuing to spend public funds for the extension of benefits to same-sex spouses of city employees by claiming those benefits violate state and city DOMAs contained in the Texas Constitution, Texas Family Code, and Houston City Charter.4 Appellants also seek an injunction to claw back taxpayer money that Mayor Parker and other city officials allegedly have unlawfully spent on same-sex spousal benefits of city employees. App.Dallas 2013, no pet.) ET. This section We are no longer able to accept online payments at this time. The City of Houston Municipal Courts accepts payments in cash, check, money order, ATM debit card, and credit card (American Express, Visa, MasterCard and Discover). 1. App.Houston [14th Dist.] We accept in-person payments in the following forms: We accept payments by mail in the following forms. Certified Paper Copy - $5.00 certification fee per document & $1.00 per page. Appellants have not and cannot demonstrate any legal purpose that would be served by such a declaration. Most documents are available to view online within minutes of being accepted. Public Datasets Private parties cannot circumvent governmental immunity by characterizing a suit for money damages as a claim for declaratory relief. v. State, 575 S.W.3d 339, 345 (Tex. We're sorry for the inconvenience but Javascript is required 2017). You can research how to prepare a Petition for Occupational License at the Harris County Law Library, which is located at 1019 Congress IF YOU ARE PART OF THIS GROUP PLEASE CONTACT THE COURT AT 713.247.8924 AND SPEAK TO SOMEONE REGARDING A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION AND A SPECIALIZED DOCKET TO ENSURE YOUR CONTINUED SAFETY. A quick reference guide on how to electronically file documents, The Supreme Court of Texas mandate on electronic filing, Judicial Committee on Information Technology E-Filing Technology Standards. After Mayor Parker's term in office concluded at the end of 2015, her successor, Mayor Turner, left the directive in place, and appellants have continued their lawsuit against Mayor Turner and the City. See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 380. App.Corpus Christi Jan. 23, 2020, no. FOLLOW US, Contact Us An ultra vires claim against a government officialthat is, a suit against a government official for acting outside his or her authority and seeking to require the official to comply with statutory or constitutional provisionsis not barred by immunity. 2018 All Rights Reserved Harris County Clerk's Office. An injury is irreparable if the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or if the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; accord Cheniere Energy, Inc. v. Parallax Enters. Appellants have not pleaded that they will suffer a probable, irreparable injury or any imminent harm. Appellants' contention that the State can refuse to provide same-sex couples the same benefits as different-sex couples based on its interest in furthering procreation and child-rearing was rejected in Obergefell. The case status is Pending - Other Pending. To speak with a Municipal Courts representative, please dial 3-1-1 or 713.837.0311, if outside Houston city limits. Welcome to the Harris County Clerk's Office official website! 2015). While Mayor Parker's and the City's appeal was pending before our court, on June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Obergefell, in which it held that same-sex couples had a constitutional right to marry. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 67576, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015). See Lazarides, 367 S.W.3d at 800, 805. Mayor Parker's Directive Was a Discretionary Act and, thus, Could not be Ultra Vires. & Rem. Thus, there is no waiver of governmental immunity on this basis. Sess. The majority need not and should not include the obiter dicta contained in subsections c, d, e, and f of section IV. Visit our Criminal court fees and customer service fees can be found here. v. Tex. Once a TRO is electronically filed, we would suggest that you contact our office so that we are aware that it has been filed. 2005). Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 446 n.9; see Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, 541 U.S. 567, 570, 124 S.Ct. 13-0435 Decided: December 19, 2014. A temporary injunction is an extraordinary remedy and does not issue as a matter of right. Because the challenged directive in this case is not a legislative pronouncement, the waiver of immunity under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act does not apply to the Pidgeon Parties' claims. for the court clerks can be found on the County Clerk web site under the County Civil Courts tab. Tex. Search for Citations and Notices. How does a process server file the return of citation? Eviction Appeal Bond (Surety) 3. In the face of an issue or doubt as to whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction, a court may not presume that it has subject-matter jurisdiction and proceed to adjudicate the merits. Transp. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 2000). In addition, when the Pidgeon Parties filed this suit, a federal district judge in the Freeman case had issued a preliminary injunction, ordering the City not to discontinue spousal benefits to same-sex spouses of City employees. at 768, 133 S.Ct. 2015, pet. If the document is accepted for filing by the County Clerk, the filer will receive a confirmation page that the document has been accepted. The City's Immunity is not Waived by Assertion of Claims under the UDJA. When this suit was filed in October 2014, provision of same-sex benefits pursuant to Mayor Parker's directive was mandated by the Freeman injunction. Suarez v. City of Tex. out-of-county family transfers for filings in Harris County. Filing an Eviction Case Information about fine only misdemeanor cases pending in the Harris County Justice Courts may be found by using the "Find Information about Cases and Dockets", "Find My Case and Court Date" on the Courts' Website at www.jp.hctx.net. You must file a Petition for an Occupational License with a court that has jurisdiction over the matter. Edited by Paige Cowett. Finally, to the extent that appellants suggest that their interest in religious liberty weighs heavily against treating same-sex and different-sex couples the same, appellants' contention is foreclosed. The status quo here is the City's continuing to offer equal benefits to all spouses of city employees. Appellants contend this would ensure equal treatment and be compliant with Section 6.204(c)(2) of the Texas Family Code. Drivers License with the Department of Public Safety, the court may deny you a hearing date. For UPDATES on current eviction cases during the COVID-19 crisis, please see the main page on this website. The Harris County Justices of the Peace and the Clerks of Save time- Request your driver record Section 6.204(b) declares void a marriage or a civil union of persons of the same sex. Prac. Produced by Mooj Zadie , Luke Vander Ploeg and Clare Toeniskoetter. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013) (citation omitted). 37.006(b); Tex. Res. The Mission of the Municipal Courts Department is to provide an accessible legal forum for individuals to have their court matters heard in a fair and efficient manner, while providing a high level of integrity, professionalism and customer service. ); Curry, 434 S.W.3d at 820. To obtain a temporary injunction, the applicant must plead and prove three elements: (1) a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Id. Instead, it serves only as a political distraction from the federal legal authority that bound the City and Mayor as of the date this lawsuit was filed, if not before. 570 U.S. 744, 133 S.Ct. 2009). This case is not final and, as such, we follow the Supreme Court's holdings in Obergefell, Pavan, and Bostock in reaching our decision. This information is not a comprehensive of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55, 98 S.Ct. Further, at the time suit was filed, the City of Houston was specifically enjoined from discontinuing the spousal benefits appellants challenge here. The Court reiterated its holding that Obergefell proscribes such disparate treatment. Id. Claims Cases, Justice 77251; For Questions Call (713) 274-6390; . Our intermediate courts of appeals have repeatedly stated that it is not an ultra vires act for an official or agency to make an erroneous decision while staying within its authority As important as a mistake may be, sovereign immunity comes with a price; it often allows the improvident actions of the government to go unredressed. Appellants' issue VII and IX are overruled. Indeed, appellants have not pleaded any imminent consequence that will flow from the City's continued provision of spousal benefits to same-sex spouses. (832) 927-5900, Criminal Collections d. Alternatively, Appellants have not Pleaded and Cannot Establish that Mayor Parker was Acting Without Legal Authority in October 2014 when Mayor Parker Declined to Enforce State and Local Laws that were Unconstitutional and Unenforceable. at 243. 2011, pet. The department is responsible for maintaining the filed records for each Probate Court case. 2020) (citing Pidgeon for the proposition that where a question presents an important issue of first impression in this Court, we decline to address the question in the first instance and defer instead for the court of appeals to address it after full briefing and argument by the parties.); see also In re Occidental Chem. To e-file through the State of Texas electronic portal EFileTexas.gov, you must first select an electronic filing service There are no guarantees that the hearing will result in an Order Their demand for a claw back remedy was, therefore, properly dismissed. Ass'n of Bus. To see the most current list of EFSP's go to www.EFileTexas.gov. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning. Information about Justice Court Cases. In their live petition, the Pidgeon Parties alleged two claims: (1) the Pidgeon Parties brought suit as taxpayers to enjoin the Mayor's alleged ultra vires expenditures of public funds, and to secure an injunction that requires city officials to claw back public funds that were spent in violation of section 6.204(c)(2) of the Texas Family Code; article I, section 32 of the Texas Constitution; and article II, section 22 of the City of Houston charter; and (2) the Pidgeon Parties brought suit under the Texas Declaratory Judgments Act, asking the trial court to declare that the Mayor Annise Parker's directive of November 19, 2013 violated state law, and to declare further that the mayor and city officials have no authority to disregard state law merely because it conflicts with their personal beliefs of what the United States Constitution or federal law requires.