C O N C U R R I N G OPINION
I agree that the County is entitled to mandamus relief compelling the district court to rule on its plea to the jurisdiction, but for somewhat different reasons than the majority cites.
The posture of the County’s jurisdictional challenge serves to sharply limit any discretion possessed by the district court to defer its ruling on the County’s plea to allow for additional discovery. Namely, the County’s plea challenges only the sufficiency of Fiske’s pleadings; i.e., whether the facts Fiske alleges, assuming they are true, invoke the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction (which in this case requires that the facts either establish a waiver of governmental immunity or do not implicate such immunity in the first place). See Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004); Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality, 307 S.W.3d 505, 512-13 (Tex. App.-Austin 2010, no pet.). Whether the facts Fiske alleged suffice to meet this burden is a question of law. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226; Creedmoor, 307 S.W.3d at 513. The existence of any additional facts not alleged in the pleadings, such as might conceivably be uncovered through the discovery contemplated by the district court’s order, is not, strictly speaking, necessary or material to the jurisdictional issue presented here. See Creedmoor, 307 S.W.3d at 516 & n.8. The procedural posture of the County’s jurisdictional challenge thus stands in contrast with challenges addressed in Miranda and Blue, in which the Texas Supreme Court recognized that trial courts must exercise discretion with regard to the timing of evidence-based jurisdictional challenges to ensure adequate opportunity for the claimant to develop and present contrary evidence, especially in instances where the challenged jurisdictional facts also implicate the merits. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227; Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000). But with no such justification for delaying its disposition of the County’s jurisdictional challenge here, I agree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the district court abused its discretion and that it should be compelled to rule on the plea without further delay. See Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 227 (noting that jurisdictional determination “must be made as soon as practicable”).
