Dallas County Schools Motion to Dismiss Ash Grove Suit

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATESFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASDALLAS DIVISIONASH GROVE TEXAS, L.P., §§Plaintiff, §§v. § CIVIL ACTION NO.§CITY OF DALLAS, CITY OF FORT § 3:08-CV-02114-OWORTH, CITY OF ARLINGTON, CITY §OF PLANO, DALLAS COUNTY §SCHOOLS, and TARRANT COUNTY, §§Defendants. §

DEFENDANT DALLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS’BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS

Dennis J. EichelbaumTexas Bar No. 06491700dje@edlaw.com

Attorney-in-Charge

Carol A. SimpsonTexas State Bar No. 24061293csimpson@edlaw.com

Schwartz & Eichelbaum

Wardell Mehl and Hansen, P.C.7400 Gaylord Pkwy, Suite 200Frisco, Texas 75034(Tel.) 972-377-7900(Fax) 972-377-7277P. Michael Jung (Co-Counsel)Texas State Bar No. 11054600Strasburger & Price, LLP901 Main Street, Suite 4400Dallas, TX 75202(Tel.) 214-651-4300(Fax) 214-659-4022michael.jung@strasburger.com

Attorneys for Defendant DCS

Case 3:08-cv-02114-O Document 21 Filed 01/06/2009 Page 1 of 30

Ash Grove Texas, L.P. v. City of Dallas, et al

.Dallas County Schools’ Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.............................................................................................iiiI. Summary of Case............................................................................................................1II. Undisputed Material Facts (Facts as Alleged by Plaintiff)...........................................1III. Standard of Review for a 12(b)(6) Motion..................................................................2IV. Issues Presented...........................................................................................................3V. Argument and Authorities.............................................................................................3A. The case is not ripe and plaintiff has no standing because Defendant DCS has notsought bids or purchased cement since it passed its Resolution................................4B. Defendant DCS’s resolution states it “authorized” its superintendent, not that itrequired the superintendent, to specify dry kiln cement..........................................12C. The DCS Resolution does not violate the Texas competitive bidding statutesbecause schools may add additional relevant criteria to their bids..........................12D. The DCS Resolution does not violate Texas’s preferential purchasing statutebecause any preference is capped at the statutory 105% limit.................................15E. The DCS Resolution is not preempted by state regulation because TCEQencouraged the resolution........................................................................................15F. The DCS Resolution is neither arbitrary nor capricious because it is rationallyrelated to a substantial governmental concern.........................................................16G. The DCS Resolution is not unconstitutionally vague because it sets philosophy, notrules..........................................................................................................................18H. The DCS Resolution is not an unconstitutional regulatory taking because thecompany is not deprived of reasonable investment-backed expectations...............19I. The DCS Resolution does not violate the equal protection clause because Plaintiff isnot a suspect class and the regulation does not involve a protected right................20J. The Plaintiff should not receive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.........................21K. The Plaintiff should not receive preliminary or permanent restraining orders........23Conclusion........................................................................................................................24Certificate of Service........................................................................................................25

Case 3:08-cv-02114-O Document 21 Filed 01/06/2009 Page 2 of 30

Ash Grove Texas, L.P. v. City of Dallas, et al

.Dallas County Schools’ Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES

Andrus v. Allard

, 444 U.S. 51 (1979)...............................................................................20

Austin Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Sunset Valley

, 502 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1973)...............19

Baker v. Carr,

369 U.S. 186 (1962)....................................................................................4

Barrera-Montenegro v.

United States,

74 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 1996)..................................6

Bd. of County Comm’rs of Bryan County v. Brown

, 520 U.S. 397 (1997).......................22

Blackburn v. City of Marshall,

42 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1995)...............................................2

Boyd v. Town of Ransom Canyon, Tex.

547 F. Supp. 2d 618 (N.D. Tex. 2008)..............21

Brown v. Nationsbank Corp

., 188 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1999)...............................................2

Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank

, 781 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1986)...........................................2

Camuglia v. The City of Albuquerque

, 448 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2006)..........................22

Cinel v. Connick

, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994)..................................................................2

City of Carrollton v. Texas Comm’n on Envtl. Quality

, 170 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.–Austin 2005, no pet.).....................................................................................................18

City of Hutchins v. Prasifka

, 450 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1970)..............................................18

Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill

, 470 U.S. 532 (1985)............................................19

Coates v.

Hall,

512 F. Supp. 2d 770 (W.D. Tex. 2007).............................................10, 11

Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter

, 224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000)..............................2

Conley v. Gibson

, 355 U.S. 41 (1957)................................................................................2

County of Sacramento v. Lewis,