X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Argued February 4, 2021 JUSTICE BLAND delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT, JUSTICE GUZMAN, JUSTICE LEHRMANN, JUSTICE BOYD, JUSTICE DEVINE, JUSTICE BUSBY, and JUSTICE HUDDLE joined, and in which JUSTICE BLACKLOCK joined except as to Part III.B. JUSTICE BLACKLOCK filed a concurring opinion. Government Code Chapter 2260 establishes a mediation process for certain disputes between state agencies and their contractors. If mediation fails, then a contractor may request that the state agency refer the contractor’s claim to the State Office of Administrative Hearings for an administrative law judge to hear it. The chapter does not waive the State’s sovereign immunity, but the contractor may use the judge’s findings and conclusions to seek payment of the claim through legislative appropriation. Upon the state agency’s receipt of notice of a claim brought under the chapter, the agency “shall refer the claim” to SOAH.[1] In this case, the City of Galveston asserts that Chapter 2260 applies to its dispute with the General Land Office, but that Commissioner George P. Bush, head of the office, refuses to refer the City’s claim to SOAH. The City asks that we exercise our original mandamus jurisdiction over state officials to compel Commissioner Bush to refer the claim. The City’s dispute with the Land Office arises from a block grant contract that required the City to administer federal disaster relief funds. The City hired a private contractor to perform some of this work. The private contractor later sued the City for amounts it claimed the City owed it under their contract. The City settled with the private contractor and now seeks reimbursement from the Land Office for the settlement amount that the City paid. As a part of settling the private contractor’s suit, however, the City agreed not to sue Commissioner Bush in “any related proceeding.” This case is a related proceeding. Accordingly, we decline to issue mandamus relief to compel Commissioner Bush to refer the City’s claim. I Hurricane Ike hit the City of Galveston in September 2008. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development provided disaster relief funds to the State, which in turn allocated some of these funds to the City to administer through a block grant contract. The City contracted with a private entity, CDM Smith, to manage a construction program for residential housing. The City’s contract with CDM Smith provided that the City would certify CDM Smith’s application for payment from State funds, initially to be disbursed by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. Two years into the contract, the Governor transferred responsibility for disbursement of these funds to the General Land Office. The City’s contract with CDM Smith expired in 2011. A dispute regarding payment and the proper certification procedure for the work arose among CDM Smith, the City, and the Land Office. The City claimed that the Land Office bore ultimate responsibility for paying CDM. The Land Office responded that the City had failed to properly certify CDM Smith’s work. CDM Smith went unpaid, and it sued the City in Galveston County in 2013 for breach of contract. Meanwhile, the Land Office sued the City and CDM Smith in Travis County, seeking a declaratory judgment to limit its liability. The City counterclaimed against the Land Office in the Travis County suit, pleading that Chapter 2260 applied. CDM Smith eventually obtained a judgment against the City for $15.7 million in the Galveston County suit. The City and CDM Smith agreed to settle for $13.5 million. “In conjunction with the settlement and dismissal of [these] claims,” the City and CDM Smith requested that the Land Office dismiss CDM Smith from the Travis County suit. In exchange, the City stipulated that it would not add Land Office employees as defendants in any related litigation: The City also gives notice of nonsuit and moves the Court to enter its order of dismissal with prejudice as to any and all claims presented or which could be presented herein against any and all GLO officials and employees in their official and/or individual capacities, whether or not currently employed by the GLO. . . . The City further stipulates and agrees that it will not add any GLO officials or employees as defendants in either their official or individual capacities in this or any related litigation. The parties filed their stipulation in a Joint Notice in the Travis County suit. As a result, the Land Office agreed to dismiss its claims against CDM Smith with prejudice. The district court ordered that partial dismissal with prejudice in April 2019. Before the trial court signed the dismissal order, the City sent the Land Office a notice of a claim under Chapter 2260. In the notice, the City claims that the Land Office must reimburse the City for the City’s settlement with CDM Smith. After the negotiation period ended, the City requested that the Land Office refer the claim to SOAH.[2] The Land Office did not refer the claim. The City then filed this original proceeding against Commissioner Bush to compel the referral.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
April 08, 2025 - April 09, 2025
Chicago, IL

Join General Counsel and Senior Legal Leaders at the Premier Forum Designed For and by General Counsel from Fortune 1000 Companies


Learn More
November 27, 2024
London

Celebrating achievement, excellence, and innovation in the legal profession in the UK.


Learn More
December 02, 2024 - December 03, 2024
Scottsdale, AZ

Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers and financiers for the real estate healthcare event of the year!


Learn More

Experienced Insurance Defense Attorney.No in office requirement.Send resume to:


Apply Now ›

Prominent law firm seeks 2 associates to join our defense teams in our downtown New York City and Melville, NY offices.The Litigation Associ...


Apply Now ›

Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening for a Litigation Counsel in our Seattle office. Experience with insurance bad faith and coverage ...


Apply Now ›