• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Dr. William Allan KritsonisCase One
Court of Appeals of Texas,San Antonio. NORTH EAST INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant,v.John KELLEY, Appellee No. 04-08-00162-CV.LITIGANTSPlaintiff’s-Appellant: John KellyDefendant-Appellees: North East Independent School DistrictBACKGROUNDFormer school teacher filed suit against school district asserting claims for breachof contract, quantum meriut, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief, after Commissioner of Education denied his grievance seeking an additional day's pay. School district filed plea to the jurisdiction, and parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. TheCounty Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, David Rodriguez, J., granted summary judgment to teacher. District appealed.FACTSKelley was employed by the District pursuant to a written one-year probationarycontract. The contract provided that Kelley would be employed "on a 10-month basis for the school year 2000-01, according to the hours and dates set by the district as they existor may hereafter be amended." The District adopted a teacher salary schedule that was based on 187 working days and a work schedule that required teachers to work 187 daysduring the 2000-2001 school year. The District required Kelley to attend a graduationceremony in addition to the 187 days he was required to work. Kelley filed a grievanceseeking an additional day's pay and appealed the District's decision to the Commissioner of Education.The Commissioner of Education concluded that Kelley's contract required him*444 to work only 187 days; therefore, the contract did not require Kelley to work anadditional day by attending the graduation ceremony. The Commissioner also concluded,however, that the District did not violate the contract by requiring Kelley to work anadditional day; instead, Kelley's claim would be a claim for quantum meruit over whichthe Commissioner had no jurisdiction. Therefore, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal
 
for lack of jurisdiction.Kelley then proceeded on two fronts. First, Kelley filed the underlying lawsuit inBexar County alleging claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit, declaratory relief,and injunctive relief and requesting attorney's fees and costs. Kelley also filed anadministrative appeal of the Commissioner's decision in Travis County.In the Bexar County lawsuit, the District filed a plea to the jurisdiction. The parties also filed competing motions for summary judgment. The district court in TravisCounty abated its case pending the outcome of the Bexar County lawsuit. The trial courtin Bexar County subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Kelley, awardinghim: (1) damages for his breach of contract claim; (2) declaratory relief that the Districtviolated the contract; and (3) injunctive relief prohibiting the District from "illegalconduct (as occurred in this case) in the future." The Bexar County trial court alsoawarded Kelley attorney's fees and costs.DECISIONThe District contends that required Kelley to appeal the Commissioner's decisionto a district court in Travis County; therefore, the Bexar County court did not have jurisdiction to consider Kelley's breach of contract claim. See Section 7.057(d) provides:A person aggrieved by an action of the agency or decision of the commissioner mayappeal to the district court in Travis County. Kelley responds that the Bexar County courthad jurisdiction because the Commissioner dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.Kelley's assertion ignores the basis for the dismissal by the Commissioner as stated in theCommissioner's written decision. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal based on hisconclusion that the only claim available to Kelley was a quantum meruit claim. Anycomplaint by Kelley that he had viable breach of contract claim had to be appealed to thedistrict court in Travis County pursuant to section 7.057. No other court had jurisdictionto *445 consider the breach of contract claim. Similarly, a declaratory judgment actionseeking to determine whether the District's actions violated the contract could not be brought in Bexar County because such a claim challenges the Commissioner's decisionthat no such complaint existed Because the Bexar County court was without jurisdictionto consider Kelley's breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims, it also waswithout jurisdiction to award Kelley attorney's fees based on the judgment it entered onthose claims.DICTAKelley contends that because he pled a quantum meruit claim in the alternative,we can affirm the trial court's judgment on that basis. A party may recover under quantummeruit only when there is no express contract covering the services rendered.Accordingly, the trial court necessarily rejected the quantum meruit claim ingranting relief on the breach of contract claim. Because the existence of Kelley's quantummeruit claim hinges on the non-existence of his breach of contract claim, and his breach
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...