Lawyers going to Lawyer - Class Action vs UT

[DaggerHorns 3,085]

11 hours ago, crash_davis said:

I support this lawsuit. I'm paying for two kids to take zoom classes at Texas. 

Agreed, this is bullshit.

Where the fuck do they party at?

[StruggleBus 3,922]

FUCK. LAWYERS.

[Dennis Taylor 18,829]

18 hours ago, crash_davis said:

Abbott opened up Texas. Wonder how long schools and universities follow suit? Will they start firing teachers and staff who don't want to go back to in person teaching? 

You mean other than UT? 

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

21 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Just wondering if you could use 91a and have a possibility of attorneys’ fees

No--attorneys' fees are not available under Rule 91a in a suit brought by or against a governmental entity.

The only reason you might use Rule 91a is that there is a requirement that the court rule within 45 days.  But that is directory, not mandatory.  So you can't even mandamus the district court if it doesn't rule within that period.

21 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

But this is a breach of contract action. Is there not a waiver for that? The University has been sued for other types of breaches, so I'd think there would have to be. 

No, there's really not.  There's a waiver for breaches of a contract that provides goods or services to a political subdivision (e.g., I sell widgets to the City of Austin and the City doesn't pay me), but this doesn't fall within that waiver.  

20 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

My recollection -- and this is from studying the bar 17 years ago -- is that you can sue for the portion of the contract the party contracting with the state has been performed, but not the part that has not been performed.

It's why Leach could not sue for the future years on his contract.

You raise a really good point.

 

A lot has happened in the law relating to sovereign/governmental immunity over the past 17 years.  Let it suffice to say that if there is no legislative waiver--and there's not one that I am aware of--then the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.

[Hanrahan 1,306]

You also use a plea to the jurisdiction because it’s denial (whether called a plea or MSJ) gets you an interlocutory appeal with a stay of all proceedings. Not sure you get that with a 91a.

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

36 minutes ago, Hanrahan said:

You also use a plea to the jurisdiction because it’s denial (whether called a plea or MSJ) gets you an interlocutory appeal with a stay of all proceedings. Not sure you get that with a 91a.

You get that regardless of the procedural vehicle you use.  It can be a 91a.  It can me an MSJ.  It doesn't matter.  Any order from the district court denying a jurisdictional challenge can be appealed on an interlocutory basis under CPRC 51.014(a)(8).