YOU ARE DOWNLOADING DOCUMENT

Please tick the box to continue:

Transcript
  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    1/26

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

    WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

    SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

    SHANNON PEREZ, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

    Defendants.

    ____________________________________

    MEXICAN AMERICAN

    LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS

    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    (MALC),

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

    Defendants.____________________________________

    TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING

    TASK FORCE, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    RICK PERRY,

    Defendant.

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.SA-11-CA-360-OLG-JES-XR

    [Lead case]

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    SA-11-CA-361-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    SA-11-CA-490-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    ____________________________________ )

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    2/26

    2

    MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    RICK PERRY, et al.,

    Defendants.

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    SA-11-CA-592-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    ____________________________________ )

    JOHN T. MORRIS,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

    Defendants.

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    SA-11-CA-615-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    ____________________________________ )

    EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    RICK PERRY, et al.,

    Defendants.

    )

    )

    )

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    SA-11-CA-635-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS

    FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

    Defendants Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor, John Steen, in his

    official capacity as Secretary of State, and the State of Texas (collectively

    Defendants) hereby move to dismiss all claims in this case for lack of subject

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    3/26

    3

    matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3). In

    support of their motion, Defendants respectfully submit the following memorandum

    of points and authorities.

    INTRODUCTION

    This is a redistricting case to prevent the implementation of electoral

    districts enacted by the Texas Legislature in 2011. The Legislature has enacted

    bills that repeal the 2011 plans and establish new plans for 2014 and future

    elections. The Governor has signed those bills into law. As a result, the vacated

    2011 plans can never be used to conduct any election. Because those plans will

    never be implemented, they pose no threat of injury to the plaintiffs. It follows that

    any order regarding the 2011 plans can provide no effectual relief. As far as the

    defunct 2011 plans are concerned, there is no relief to grant. This case no longer

    presents a live case or controversy. The Court therefore lacks subject matter

    jurisdiction. The only thing left to do is dismiss.

    FACTS

    The plaintiffs in these consolidated cases seek declaratory and injunctive

    relief to prevent Defendants from implementing bills enacted by the 82nd Texas

    Legislature in 2011 to establish electoral districts for the Texas House of

    Representatives (Plan H283) and the United States House of Representatives (Plan

    C185).1 The pleadings invoke a variety of statutory and constitutional provisions,

    1See, e.g., Plaintiff MALCs Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 50) 21 (The redistricting legislation

    for the Texas House districts, H.B. 150, was signed by the Governor on June 17, 2011. The

    redistricting legislation for the United States House of Representatives, S.B. 4, was passed by the

    Texas Legislature on or about June 15, 2011.); Quesada Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint (Doc.

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    4/26

    4

    but the plaintiffs challenge to Plans H283 and C185 rests primarily on Section 2 of

    the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the

    United States Constitution.2 On September 29, 2011, the Court entered an

    injunction against implementation of Plans H283 and C185 because the plans had

    not been precleared under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c.3

    The parties stipulated that the Courts order would be effective as a permanent

    injunction, subject to being lifted by order of the Court as appropriate.4

    On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in

    Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, No. 12-96, 2013 WL 3184629 (U.S. June 25,

    2013), reversing679 F.3d 848 (D.C. Cir. 2012), holding that the coverage formula in

    Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and can no longer be used

    as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. Id. at *18. On June 27,

    2013, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. District Courts judgment denying

    preclearance of the 2011 legislatively enacted redistricting plans and remanded the

    case for further consideration in light ofShelby County. SeeTexas v. United States,

    No. 12-496, 2013 WL 3213539, *1 (U.S. June 27, 2013).

    On June 23, 2013, the Legislature passed new redistricting bills for the

    United States House of Representatives and the Texas House of Representatives.5

    In addition to enacting Plans C235 and H358, the newly enacted redistricting bills

    105) 2 (Plaintiffs file this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants

    from using the States Plan [Plan C185] in any future elections.). 2See, e.g., Order (Doc. 285) at 516 (enumerating the claims asserted by plaintiffs).3See Order Enjoining the Implementation of Voting Changes (Doc. 380) at 4.4Id. at 5.5See Tex. S.B. 3,83d Leg., 1st C.S. (enacting Plan H358); Tex. S.B. 4,83d Leg., 1st C.S. (enacting

    Plan C235).

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 4 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    5/26

    5

    repealed the 2011 plans challenged in this case.6 On June 26, 2013, the Governor

    signed the newly enacted redistricting bills into law. See Exhibit A ((June 26, 2013

    Letter from Office of the Governor to Texas Secretary of State).

    LEGAL STANDARD

    Article III of the Constitution permits federal courts to adjudicate only actual

    cases or controversies. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990).

    This means litigants must suffer, or be threatened with, an actual injury traceable

    to the defendants actions, and that the federal court must be able to grant effectual

    relief. See id. This case-or-controversy requirement must be satisfied at every

    stage of judicial proceedings. Id. If it is not, the federal court lacks the power to

    adjudicate the case and must dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. E.g.,

    Home Builders Assn of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.

    1998).

    Plaintiffs generally bear the burden of establishing subject matter

    jurisdiction, see Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001),

    including their own standing to sue, see Cobb v. Central States, 461 F.3d 632, 635

    (5th Cir. 2006). When a party asserts that its own conduct has eliminated any live

    case or controversy, however, it bears a heavy burden to show that the change in

    circumstances makes it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could

    not reasonably be expected to recur. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl.

    6See Tex. S.B. 3, art. III, 3,83d Leg., 1st C.S. (Chapter 1271 (H.B. 150), Acts of the 82nd

    Legislature, Regular Session, 2011 (Article 195a-12, Vernon s Texas Civil Statutes), is repealed.);

    Tex. S.B. 4 3,83d Leg., 1st C.S. (Chapter 1 (Senate Bill No. 4), Acts of the 82nd Legislature, 1st

    Called Session, 2011 (Article 197j, Vernon s Texas Civil Statutes), is repealed.).

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 5 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    6/26

    6

    Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000). Governmental entities, however, are

    accorded a presumption of good faith because they are public servants, not self-

    interested private parties. Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas, 560 F.3d 316, 325

    (5th Cir. 2009), affd, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011).

    ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

    As a result of the Legislatures enactment of new redistricting plans and its

    repeal of the redistricting plans enacted in 2011 by the 82nd Legislature, the claims

    asserted against the 2011 redistricting plans no longer present a live case or

    controversy. Because the 2011 plans have been repealed, the State cannot

    implement themno election is scheduled for the Texas House, the Texas Senate,

    or the U.S. House of Representatives between now and the effective date of the new

    plans. Nor is there any realistic threat that the State will reinstate the 2011 plans

    through future legislation. Indeed, the Legislature has enacted starkly different

    maps to be used in elections for the rest of the decade. As a result, the plaintiffs

    alleged injury from the 2011 plans no longer exists, and this Court cannot provide

    any effectual relief with respect to their claims against the 2011 plans. The case is

    moot, and the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

    The Constitution confines the judicial power to actual cases or controversies.

    See U.S. Const. art. III 2. The Supreme Court has explained that the triad of

    injury in fact, causation, and redressability constitutes the core of Article III's case-

    or-controversy requirement. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523

    U.S. 83, 10304 (1998) (footnote omitted). To invoke the jurisdiction of a federal

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 6 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    7/26

    7

    court, a litigant must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury

    traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial

    decision. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990); see also Iron

    Arrow Honor Socy v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (per curiam) (To satisfy the

    Article III case or controversy requirement, a litigant must have suffered some

    actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.). When a

    lawsuit no longer presents a live controversy, the court loses subject matter

    jurisdiction and can proceed no further:

    Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.

    Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist,

    the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact

    and dismissing the cause.

    Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 94 (1998) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506,

    514 (1868)).

    Because this case no longer presents a live case or controversy the plaintiffs

    claims against the 2011 redistricting plans are moot. [A]n actual controversy must

    be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.

    Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997). A case is moot

    when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable

    interest in the outcome. City of Erie v. Paps A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000)

    (quoting County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)).

    The issues presented by the plaintiffs challenge to the 2011 plans are no

    longer live because the plans have no prospect of enforcement. A suit challenging

    the validity of a statute generally becomes moot when the statute is repealed. In

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 7 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    8/26

    8

    that event, the challenge to the statute no longer presents a live controversy, and

    the case must be dismissed:

    If the challenged statute no longer exists, there ordinarily can be no

    real controversy as to its continuing validity, and an order enjoining itsenforcement would be meaningless. In such circumstances, it is well

    settled that the case should be dismissed as moot.

    Ne. Florida Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville,

    Fla., 508 U.S. 656, 670 (1993); see also McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846, 849 (5th Cir.

    2004) (Suits regarding the constitutionality of statutes become moot once the

    statute is repealed.).

    Similarly, the demise of the 2011 redistricting plans eliminates the plaintiffs

    concrete stake in the outcome of the case because they face no realistic threat of

    injury from Plans C185 or H283. To maintain a live case or controversy:

    [t]he parties must continue to have a personal stake in the outcome

    of the lawsuit. . . . . This means that, throughout the litigation, the

    plaintiff must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury

    traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorablejudicial decision.

    Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 47778). For

    this reason, the doctrine of mootness is often characterized as the doctrine of

    standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the

    commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence

    (mootness).7 E.g.,Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S. at 68 n.22; cf.Lujan v.

    7 This shorthand description of mootness doctrine, first expressed in Monaghan, Constitutional

    Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 YALE L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973), is not comprehensive in the

    sense that it does not reflect certain exceptions to mootness, seeFriends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw

    Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000), none of which vest the Court with jurisdiction in

    this case.

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 8 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    9/26

    9

    Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (explaining that Article III standing

    requires the plaintiff to identify a concrete and imminent invasion of a legally

    protected interest that is neither conjectural nor hypothetical); Ashwander v.

    Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring)

    (The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who

    fails to show that he is injured by its operation.). Because the claims asserted by

    all plaintiffs are directed at legislation that has now been repealed and replaced,

    Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they are likely to be harmed by the challenged

    redistricting plans. Plaintiffs inability to identify any threat of injury deprives

    them of a concrete stake in the outcome of this case, rendering the case moot and

    divesting this Court of subject matter jurisdiction.8

    The fact that the Texas Constitution postpones the effective date of the newly

    enacted redistricting bills9 does not save this case from mootness for at least two

    reasons. First, the repeal is automatic. No further action is necessary before the

    new redistricting plans take effect and the old redistricting plans are repealed. The

    effective date will come, and the 2011 redistricting mapsthe maps at issue in this

    casewill cease to exist. Second, there are no election dates for the Texas House,

    8 Plaintiffs claims for attorneys fees are insufficient to create an Article III case or controversy

    where none exists on the merits of the underlying claim. Lewis, 494 U.S. at 480 (citingDiamond v.Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 7071 (1986)). [A] determination of mootness neither precludes nor is

    precluded by an award of attorneys fees. The attorneys fees question turns instead on a wholly

    independent consideration: whether plaintiff is a prevailing party. Murphy v. Fort Worth Ind. Sch.

    Dist., 334 F.3d 470, 471 (5th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (quoting Doe v. Marshall, 622 F.2d 118, 120 (5th

    Cir.1980)).9See TEX.CONST. art. III, 39 (No law passed by the Legislature, except the general appropriation

    act, shall take effect or go into force until ninety days after the adjournment of the session at which

    it was enacted, unless the Legislature shall, by a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to

    each House, otherwise direct . . . .).

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 9 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    10/26

    10

    the Texas Senate, or the U.S. House of Representatives between now and the

    effective date of the newly enacted redistricting plans.

    It follows that this Court can no longer provide any effectual relief with

    respect to claims against the 2011 redistricting plans. The case or controversy

    requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits federal courts

    from considering questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case

    before them. C&H Nationwide, Inc. v. Norwest Bank Texas NA, 208 F.3d 490, 493

    (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)).A case no

    longer presents a live case or controversy, and thus becomes moot, when it is

    impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.

    Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023 (2013).

    The constitutionally delayed effective date of the 2013 redistricting bills

    cannot sustain an Article III case or controversy because it does not change the fact

    that the 2011 plans will never be implemented.10

    The fact that the challenged

    statutes have been repealed provides an absolute assurance that the conduct sought

    to be enjoinedimplementation of Plans C185 and H283will not occur.

    To be sure, a party urging mootness based on voluntary cessation of the

    challenged conduct bears a heavy burden to demonstrate that it is absolutely

    clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to

    10 Even if the effective date of SB 3 and SB 4 somehow preserved an Article III case or controversy,

    the case is still moot, and dismissal is required, because the Court cannot provide any relief on the

    claims asserted. See, e.g., First Indiana Federal Savings Bank v. F.D.I.C., 964 F.2d 503, 507 (5th

    Cir. 1992) (Even if First Indianas claims constitute a case or controversy under Article III of the

    Constitution, those claims should be dismissed for prudential reasons because there is no practical

    purpose in requiring their adjudication on the merits. Irrespective of the abstract validity of any of

    First Indianas claims against Old United, there are no set of circumstances under which First

    Indiana can recover any money or property as a result of those claims.) (footnotes omitted).

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 10 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    11/26

    11

    occur. Friends of the Earth, 528 U.S. at 189. But a governmental entitys

    conclusive abandonment of the challenged policy is sufficient to demonstrate that

    the threat of injury has abated, even when the change in policy is not accomplished

    by a statutory repeal or amendment. See, e.g., Sossamon, 560 F.3d at 325 (holding

    that the TDCJ directors affidavit explaining a revision to the policy in question was

    sufficient to establish that the plaintiff would no longer be subject to the challenged

    restrictions on attendance at religious services); Coalition of Airline Pilots Assn v.

    F.A.A., 370 F.3d 1184, (D.C. Cir. 2004) ([T]he agencies commitment to draft new

    regulations that will provide additional administrative review proceduresa

    commitment made both to this court and in the formal entry in the TSA rulemaking

    docketsprovides sufficient assurance that the agencies will never return to [the]

    allegedly unlawful procedures.). Government entities are entitled to a

    presumption of good faith when a change in policy eliminates the case or

    controversy. See Sossamon, 560 F.3d at 325 (Without evidence to the contrary, we

    assume that formally announced changes to official governmental policy are not

    mere litigation posturing.).

    The Legislatures formal repeal of the statutes at issue in this case

    demonstrates beyond any doubt that the State will not reanimate the challenged

    redistricting plans. With no prospect that the 2011 plans will be used to conduct

    elections, any order enjoining their use or declaring them unlawful would serve no

    purpose, as it would not change the plaintiffs position. Because ruling on the

    validity of the repealed 2011 plans can provide no relief to the parties, any such

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 11 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    12/26

    12

    ruling would constitute an advisory opinion, which the federal courts lack power to

    issue. E.g., Prieser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401 (1975) ([A] federal court has

    neither the power to render advisory opinions nor to decide questions that cannot

    affect the rights of litigants in the case before them. (quoting North Carolina v.

    Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971))).

    This case no longer presents a live controversy because the Legislature has

    repealed the redistricting plans challenged by the plaintiffs. The statutes that

    created Plans C185 and H283 will not take effect. Those plans will not be used to

    conduct any election. Any order to prevent their implementation would be an

    advisory opinion. This Court lacks jurisdiction. The case should be dismissed as

    moot.

    CONCLUSION

    For the reasons stated above, the case should be dismissed for lack of subject

    matter jurisdiction.

    Dated: June 28, 2013 Respectfully submitted.

    GREG ABBOTT

    Attorney General of Texas

    DANIEL T. HODGE

    First Assistant Attorney General

    /s/ David C. MattaxDAVID C. MATTAX

    Texas Bar No. 13201600

    Deputy Attorney General

    for Defense Litigation

    J. REED CLAY, JR.

    Special Assistant and Senior Counsel

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 12 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    13/26

    13

    to the Attorney General

    PATRICK K. SWEETEN

    Chief, Special Litigation Division

    ANGELA COLMENEROAssistant Attorney General

    MATTHEW H. FREDERICK

    Assistant Solicitor General

    P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station

    Austin, TX 78711-2548

    (512) 463-0150

    (512) 936-0545 (fax)

    ATTORNEYS FOR THE STATE OF

    TEXAS, RICK PERRY, AND JOHN

    STEEN

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 13 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    14/26

    14

    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

    I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this filing was sent on June 28,

    2013, via the Courts electronic notification system and/or email to the following

    counsel of record:

    DAVID RICHARDS

    Richards, Rodriguez & Skeith LLP

    816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200

    Austin, TX 78701

    512-476-0005

    [email protected]

    RICHARD E. GRAY, III

    Gray & Becker, P.C.

    900 West Avenue, Suite 300

    Austin, TX 78701

    512-482-0061/512-482-0924 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

    PEREZ, DUTTON, TAMEZ, HALL,

    ORTIZ, SALINAS, DEBOSE, and

    RODRIGUEZ

    JOSE GARZA

    Law Office of Jose Garza7414 Robin Rest Dr.

    San Antonio, Texas 78209

    210-392-2856

    [email protected]

    MARK W. KIEHNE

    [email protected]

    RICARDO G. CEDILLO

    [email protected]

    Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza

    McCombs Plaza755 Mulberry Ave., Ste. 500

    San Antonio, TX 78212

    210-822-6666/210-822-1151 (facsimile)

    ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN

    AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS

    GERALD H. GOLDSTEIN

    [email protected]

    DONALD H. FLANARY, III

    [email protected]

    Goldstein, Goldstein and Hilley

    310 S. St. Marys Street

    San Antonio, TX 78205-4605

    210-226-1463/210-226-8367 (facsimile)

    PAUL M. SMITH, MICHAEL B.

    DESANCTIS, JESSICA RING

    AMUNSON

    Jenner & Block LLP

    1099 New York Ave., NW

    Washington, D.C. 20001

    202-639-6000

    J. GERALD HEBERT

    191 Somervelle Street, # 405

    Alexandria, VA 22304

    [email protected]

    JESSE GAINES

    P.O. Box 50093

    Fort Worth, TX 76105

    817-714-9988

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

    QUESADA, MUNOZ, VEASEY,

    HAMILTON, KING and JENKINS

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 14 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    15/26

    15

    NINA PERALES

    [email protected]

    MARISA BONO

    [email protected]

    Mexican American Legal Defense

    and Education Fund110 Broadway, Suite 300

    San Antonio, TX 78205

    210-224-5476/210-224-5382 (facsimile)

    MARK ANTHONY SANCHEZ

    [email protected]

    ROBERT W. WILSON

    [email protected]

    Gale, Wilson & Sanchez, PLLC

    115 East Travis Street, Ste. 1900

    San Antonio, TX 78205

    210-222-8899/210-222-9526 (facsimile)

    ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS LATINO

    REDISTRICTING TASK FORCE,

    CARDENAS, JIMENEZ, MENENDEZ,

    TOMACITA AND JOSE OLIVARES,

    ALEJANDRO AND REBECCA ORTIZ

    JOHN T. MORRIS

    5703 Caldicote St.

    Humble, TX 77346281-852-6388

    JOHN T. MORRIS, PRO SE

    MAX RENEA HICKS

    Law Office of Max Renea Hicks

    101 West Sixth Street Suite 504

    Austin, TX 78701

    512-480-8231/512/480-9105 (facsimile)

    ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS CITYOF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX

    SERNA, BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY

    F. LOPEZ, CONSTABLE BRUCE

    ELFANT, DAVID GONZALEZ, EDDIE

    RODRIGUEZ, MILTON GERARD

    WASHINGTON, and SANDRA SERNA

    LUIS ROBERTO VERA, JR.

    Law Offices of Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. &

    Associates

    1325 Riverview Towers

    San Antonio, Texas 78205-2260

    [email protected]

    GEORGE JOSEPH KORBEL

    Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, Inc.

    1111 North Main

    San Antonio, TX 78213

    210-212-3600

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-

    PLAINTIFF LEAGUE OF UNITED

    LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS

    ROLANDO L. RIOS

    Law Offices of Rolando L. Rios

    115 E Travis Street, Suite 1645

    San Antonio, TX 78205

    210-222-2102

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-

    PLAINTIFF HENRY CUELLAR

    GARY L. BLEDSOE

    Law Office of Gary L. Bledsoe

    316 W. 12th Street, Ste. 307

    Austin, TX 78701

    512-322-9992/512-322-0840 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEY FOR INTERVENOR-

    PLAINTIFFS TEXAS STATE

    CONFERENCE OF NAACPBRANCHES, TEXAS LEGISLATIVE

    BLACK CAUCUS, EDDIE BERNICE

    JOHNSON, SHEILA JACKSON-

    LEE, ALEXANDER GREEN,

    HOWARD JEFFERSON, BILL

    LAWSON, and JUANITA WALLACE

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 15 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    16/26

    16

    STEPHEN E. MCCONNICO

    [email protected]

    SAM JOHNSON

    [email protected]

    S. ABRAHAM KUCZAJ, III

    [email protected], Douglass & McConnico

    One American Center

    600 Congress Ave., 15th Floor

    Austin, TX 78701

    512-495-6300/512-474-0731 (facsimile)

    ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS CITY

    OF AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, ALEX

    SERNA, BALAKUMAR PANDIAN,

    BEATRICE SALOMA, BETTY F.

    LOPEZ, CONSTABLE BRUCE

    ELFANT, DAVID GONZALEZ, EDDIE

    RODRIGUEZ, ELIZA ALVARADO,

    JOSEY MARTINEZ, JUANITA

    VALDEZ-COX, LIONOR SOROLA-

    POHLMAN, MILTON GERARD

    WASHINGTON, NINA JO BAKER, and

    SANDRA SERNA

    CHAD W. DUNN

    [email protected]. SCOTT BRAZIL

    [email protected]

    Brazil & Dunn

    4201 FM 1960 West, Suite 530

    Houston, TX 77068

    281-580-6310/281-580-6362 (facsimile)

    ATTORNEYS FOR INTERVENOR-

    DEFENDANTS TEXAS DEMOCRATIC

    PARTY and BOYD RICHIE

    VICTOR L. GOODE

    Asst. Gen. Counsel, NAACP

    4805 Mt. Hope Drive

    Baltimore, MD 21215-5120

    410-580-5120/410-358-9359 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEY FOR TEXAS STATE

    CONFERENCE OF NAACP

    BRANCHES

    ROBERT NOTZON

    Law Office of Robert S. Notzon

    1507 Nueces Street

    Austin, TX 78701

    512-474-7563/512-474-9489 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    ALLISON JEAN RIGGS

    ANITA SUE EARLS

    Southern Coalition for Social Justice

    1415 West Highway 54, Ste. 101

    Durham, NC 27707

    919-323-3380/919-323-3942 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEYS FOR TEXAS STATE

    CONFERENCE OF NAACPBRANCHES, EARLS, LAWSON,

    WALLACE, and JEFFERSON

    DONNA GARCIA DAVIDSON

    PO Box 12131

    Austin, TX 78711

    512-775-7625/877-200-6001 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    FRANK M. REILLY

    Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.

    P.O. Box 4037Horseshoe Bay, TX 78657

    512-469-7474/512-469-7480 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

    STEVE MUNISTERI

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 16 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    17/26

    17

    Via Email

    JOAQUIN G. AVILA

    P.O. Box 33687

    Seattle, WA 98133

    206-724-3731/206-398-4261 (facsimile)[email protected]

    ATTORNEYS FOR MEXICAN

    AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS

    KAREN M. KENNARD

    2803 Clearview Drive

    Austin, TX 78703

    (512) 974-2177/512-974-2894 (facsimile)

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

    CITY OF AUSTIN

    DAVID ESCAMILLA

    Travis County Asst. Attorney

    P.O. Box 1748

    Austin, TX 78767

    (512) 854-9416

    [email protected]

    ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

    TRAVIS COUNTY

    /s/ David C. Mattax

    DAVID C. MATTAX

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768 Filed 06/28/13 Page 17 of 17

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    18/26

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 6

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    19/26

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 6

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    20/26

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 6

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    21/26

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 4 of 6

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    22/26

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 5 of 6

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    23/26

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 6 of 6

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    24/26

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

    WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

    SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

    SHANNON PEREZ, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

    Defendants.

    ____________________________________

    MEXICAN AMERICAN

    LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, TEXAS

    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    (MALC),

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

    Defendants.____________________________________

    TEXAS LATINO REDISTRICTING

    TASK FORCE, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    RICK PERRY,

    Defendant.

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.5:11-CV-360-OLG-JES-XR

    [Lead case]

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    5:11-CV-361-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    5:11-CV-490-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    ____________________________________ )

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-2 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 3

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    25/26

    MARGARITA V. QUESADA, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    RICK PERRY, et al.,

    Defendants.

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    5:11-CV-592-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    ____________________________________ )

    JOHN T. MORRIS,

    Plaintiff,

    v.

    STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

    Defendants.

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    5:11-CV-615-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    ____________________________________ )

    EDDIE RODRIGUEZ, et al.,

    Plaintiffs,

    v.

    RICK PERRY, et al.,

    Defendants.

    )

    )

    )

    )

    ))

    )

    )

    )

    )

    CIVIL ACTION NO.

    5:11-CV-635-OLG-JES-XR

    [Consolidated case]

    ORDER

    Now before the Court is Defendants Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject

    Matter Jurisdiction. After considering the motion, the Court is of the opinion that,

    for the reasons stated therein, it should be GRANTED.

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-2 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 3

  • 7/28/2019 Texas Motion to Dismiss

    26/26

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that

    Defendants Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is hereby

    GRANTED.

    SIGNED on this _______ day of ____________, 2013.

    _________________________________

    JERRY E. SMITH

    UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

    _________________________________

    ORLANDO L. GARCIA

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    _________________________________

    XAVIER RODRIGUEZ

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

    Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 768-2 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 3