City of New Braunfels, Texas v. Stop The Ordinances Please; W. W. GAF, Inc. d/b/a Rockin R River Rides; Texas Tubes; Tourist Associated Businesses of Comal County; Union River LLC d/b/a Landa River Tr

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2013 » City of New Braunfels, Texas v. Stop The Ordinances Please; W. W. GAF, Inc. d/b/a Rockin R River Rides; Texas Tubes; Tourist Associated Businesses of Comal County; Union River LLC d/b/a Landa River Tr

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-12-00528-CV

Case Date: 02/21/2013

Plaintiff: City of New Braunfels, Texas

Defendant: Stop The Ordinances Please; W. W. GAF, Inc. d/b/a Rockin R River Rides; Texas Tubes; Tourist Associ

Preview:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00528-CV

City of New Braunfels, Texas, Appellant v. Stop The Ordinances Please; W. W. GAF, Inc. d/b/a Rockin "R" River Rides; Texas Tubes; Tourist Associated Businesses of Comal County; Union River LLC d/b/a Landa River Trips; Chuck's Tubes; Waterpark Management, Inc.; Tri-City Distributors, LP; et al., Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2007-0387B, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This interlocutory appeal arises from a continuation of the same underlying disputes and litigation that gave rise to STOP v. City of New Braunfels, which center on efforts by the City of New Braunfels (City) to restrict, through the exercise of its municipal regulatory authority, the presence of beverages and containers on the portions of the Guadalupe and Comal rivers situated within City limits. 306 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. App.--Austin 2010, no pet.) (STOP I). As in STOP I, the issue before us is not the ultimate validity of these regulations, much less their wisdom as a matter of policy, but only whether a group of citizens seeking to challenge the regulations' legality have demonstrated their standing to present their claims in court. The appellees here sued the City to challenge its latest regulations of this sort, and the City challenged appellees' standing to do so through pleas to the jurisdiction. Concluding that

appellees had sufficiently demonstrated their standing to prosecute their claims, the district court denied the City's plea in full. The City now appeals. We agree with the district court and affirm its order denying the City's pleas with the exception of the claims asserted by a single appellee, Stone Randall Williams. However, we conclude that Mr. Williams's failure to establish his standing is the sort of jurisdictional defect for which Texas law bars immediate dismissal, and instead entitles him to the opportunity to replead.

BACKGROUND STOP I As we detailed in STOP I, the past decade has seen intense public debate among New Braunfels citizens and local officials regarding what some view as an overabundance of alcohol-fueled "tubers" and resultant social ills along the Comal and Guadalupe rivers. See id. at 922. The controversy has prompted policy responses that have included the New Braunfels City Council's enactment of four ordinances in 2006 and 2007 that restrict the public use or possession of "volume drinking devices" within the City, the use or possession of open containers of five ounces or less on public waters within the City, the consumption of alcohol in public parks within the City, and the possession of "coolers" ("a receptacle or apparatus capable of cooling or keeping cold foods and drinks which carry more than one container") with a capacity exceeding sixteen quarts on public waters within the City. See id. at 922-23 (describing, respectively, the "Beer Bong Ordinance," the "Five-Ounce Container Ordinance," the "Parks Ordinance," and the "Cooler & Container Ordinance").

2

In response, STOP--"Stop The Ordinances Please," which alleged itself to be an "unincorporated association of business owners and other parties interested in the use and enjoyment of the Comal and Guadalupe rivers" within City limits--sued the City in 2007 seeking declarations that the ordinances were invalid and injunctive relief against their enforcement.1 See id. at 923-24. STOP was later joined as a plaintiff by five of its individual members, four local businesses that catered to tubers (termed "Outfitter Plaintiffs") and Williams, who alleged that he had been cited for violating the Cooler & Container Ordinance. See id. at 924. The plaintiffs collectively sought declarations that the ordinances exceeded the City's constitutional and statutory authority because (1) the portions of the Comal and Guadalupe flowing within the City are navigable streams whose water and riverbed are owned by the State and are beyond the City's regulatory authority; (2) the ordinances are preempted by State authority under the alcoholic beverage code; and (3) certain of the ordinances that are purportedly aimed at litter control, including the Cooler & Container Ordinance, violate section 361.0961 of the health and safety code, which limits local authority to regulate, "for solid waste management purposes, the sale or use of a container or package in a manner not authorized by state law . . . ."2 See id. at 923-24.3

See Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

Download 03-12-00528-cv.pdf