Standing must exist at the time a plaintiff files suit if the plaintiff lacks standing at the time of filing, the case must be dismissed, even if the plaintiff later acquires an interest sufficient to support standing. “To establish standing, a person must show a personal stake in the controversy.” In re B.I.V., 923 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tex.1996) (per curiam). The general test for standing is whether there is a real controversy between the parties that will actually be determined by the judgment sought.
Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445–46 (Tex.1993) (noting that standing “may be raised for the first time on appeal by the parties or by the court”). See OAIC, 234 S.W.3d at 735 see also Tex. Thus, standing cannot be waived, and we may examine standing sua sponte if necessary. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299, 304 (Tex.2008) (“A court has no jurisdiction over a claim made by a plaintiff without standing to assert it.”) (footnote omitted). Standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction. CPL filed a responsive letter brief, with additional evidence attached, in which it did not take a definite position on the standing question. Appellant filed a letter brief in which she contends that she had and has standing to sue. We then invited the parties to file jurisdictional briefs. Appellant filed a letter advising us that she filed for bankruptcy on February 3, 2009, and that the bankruptcy case was dismissed on September 18, 2009. Counsel for Plaintiff would request that the Court postpone this hearing until proper action may be taken in the bankruptcy proceeding.īecause bankruptcy can affect a claimant's standing to sue, we asked the parties to submit additional information regarding appellant's bankruptcy. However, counsel for Plaintiff files this response in order to protect the rights of Plaintiff. To date, counsel for Plaintiff has not been retained by the Bankruptcy Trustee to further pursue Plaintiff's claim. In our review of the record, we discovered the following footnote in appellant's response to CPL's special exceptions:ĭue to financial hardship, Plaintiff has recently filed Chapter 13 Bankruptcy proceedings. We treat appellant's notice of appeal as a timely filed notice of appeal from the order of dismissal.
#Clinical pathology associates trial
A few weeks later, on October 1, 2009, the trial judge signed an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Instead, ten days later appellant filed a notice of appeal. The trial judge sustained CPL's special exceptions and ordered appellant to replead within ten days on pain of dismissal. Appellant filed a response, and CPL filed a reply brief.
CPL answered and filed special exceptions, contending that appellant had failed to assert a viable cause of action under Texas law. On March 16, 2009, appellant sued CPL for wrongful termination. According to her petition, “ asserts that terminated her for exercising her right to vote,” and that CPL's conduct proximately caused damages to appellant. Two days later, CPL terminated appellant. Appellant left work fifteen minutes early in order to go vote. On November 4, 2008, she requested permission to leave work early to vote in the general election. Appellant was an employee of CPL for three years. We affirm.Īppellant alleged the following facts in her original petition. The trial court dismissed the case, and Martin appealed. (CPL) for wrongful termination, contending that Texas recognizes a wrongful-termination cause of action against an employer that terminates an at-will employee for exercising her right to vote in a general election. CLINICAL PATHOLOGY LABORATORIES, INC., Appellee No. 05–09–01079–CV Decided: June 08, 2011īefore Justices FitzGerald, Lang–Miers, and FillmoreĪppellant Joyce Martin sued appellee Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
