City of Port Arthur v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

Citations: 13 S.W.3d 841; 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 1369; 2000 WL 231308Docket: 03-99-00743-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 2, 2000; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The City of Port Arthur appeals the district court's decision to strike its plea in intervention regarding Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's (SWB) application for rate group reclassification. SWB filed this application with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (the Commission), which was approved without the City's involvement. After the decision, the City sought to intervene and reconsider the ruling but was denied and did not request a rehearing. SWB subsequently pursued judicial review, leading the City to file a petition in the district court, which was contested by SWB and the Commission. The district court struck the City's petition and severed its claims, prompting the City’s appeal. 

In its appeal, the City argues that the district court's denial of intervention violated its rights under the Open Courts and Due Process clauses of the Texas Constitution. The court reviews intervention denials for abuse of discretion, assessing whether the intervenor could have pursued the action independently, whether the intervention complicates the case, and whether it is essential for protecting the intervenor's interests. The burden is on the would-be intervenor to demonstrate a justiciable interest, and interventions must typically occur before a judgment is rendered. The court ultimately affirmed the district court's decision to deny the City's intervention.

Commission proceedings are governed by the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Administrative Code. Parties to these proceedings, defined as applicants, complainants, respondents, intervenors, or general counsel, are entitled to judicial review under the substantial evidence rule, contingent upon filing a motion for rehearing in the administrative proceeding. The City did not participate in the administrative hearing or obtain permission to intervene, thus it is not considered a party and lacks the statutory right to seek judicial review. After its late motion to intervene was denied, the City failed to file a motion for rehearing, further preventing it from pursuing judicial review.

The court noted that the City provided no authority supporting its right to intervene in a district court for a review of an agency's decision in which it was not a party, leading to the conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the City's plea. Regarding the City's right to seek discovery, judicial review follows the substantial evidence rule, where the reviewing court typically considers only the agency record unless procedural irregularities are alleged or additional evidence is deemed necessary. The City, not being a party, lacks grounds to present new evidence and has not shown an application to do so. Consequently, the district court's review was limited to the administrative record, and the City was not entitled to additional discovery. The court overruled both of the City's issues on appeal.

The City contends that its exclusion from district court proceedings infringes upon the Open Courts and Due Process provisions of the Texas Constitution. However, the court disagrees, noting that municipalities do not possess due process rights in this context, referencing Proctor v. Andrews. To establish an Open Courts violation, the City must demonstrate that a common-law cause of action is being restricted and that the restriction is unreasonable or arbitrary. The court finds the City's argument lacking because there is no recognized common-law cause of action for judicial review of an agency's administrative decisions, citing Benavidez v. Travelers Indem. Co. and Southwest Airlines Co. v. Texas High-Speed Rail Auth. Consequently, the court overrules the City's appeal and affirms the district court's decision to strike the City's petition in intervention. The appeal record is limited to the pleadings from the district court, excluding the underlying administrative proceeding, and the court confines its review to the district court's actions regarding the petition in intervention, declining to address the administrative proceedings or direct the Commission on those matters.