The Amarillo Court of Appeals has affirmed a Williamson County district court’s dismissal of claims against the City of Austin and the nonprofit developer of a housing project for the homeless.
Chaudhari Partnership v. AHFC Pecan Park PSH Non-Profit Corporation and the City of Austin (No. 07-23-00362-CV; March 19, 2024) arose from the city’s purchase of a motel for redevelopment as housing for the homeless. Chaudhari, which owned the adjancent property, and the Williamson County attorney filed separate lawsuits to stop the project. Chaudhari intervened in the county attorney’s lawsuit and nonsuited its own lawsuit with prejudice. The city asserted governmental immunity and filed a plea to the jurisdiction, while plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. After a hearing, District Judge Scott Field granted the city’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case with prejudice without considering plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion. The Partnership appealed, and the case was transferred to the Amarillo Court of Appeals through docket equalization.
The court of appeals affirmed. The city argued that when Chaudhari intervened in the county attorney’s lawsuit and nonsuited its own, its intervention didn’t state a cause of action, simply stating that it had an interest in the litigation. There was also the issue of the effect of Chaudhari’s voluntary nonsuit with prejudice on its status as an intervenor. In any event, Judge Field granted the city’s plea without stating the grounds. This meant that on appeal Chaudhari had the burden to negate the viability of any potential ground for granting the plea. The court determined that it failed to do so. First, Chaudhari failed to state a cause of action in its intervention. Second, the prior nonsuit with prejudice foreclosed Chaudhari’s ability to assert an inverse condemnation or other claim in a separate lawsuit. Since Chaudhari could no longer sue the city on those claims, it could not state a facially valid cause of action that could defeat governmental immunity. Third, the court rejected Chaudhari’s argument that the city could not assert immunity because providing housing for the homeless was a proprietary function, not a governmental one.
