modification to a municipal ordinance, made in accordance with a settlement agreementbetween Plaintiffs and Defendant, and further, because Plaintiffs are not asserting a claim formoney damages, this is a suit in which the City does not enjoy governmental immunity fromsuit.
City of San Benito v
, 88 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi, 2002).
5. On October 17, 2011 at Dallas County, Texas, Plaintiff Jennifer Florence Dawson, onbehalf of herself and others similarly situated, entered into a settlement agreement with the City of Dallas. See
.6. That settlement agreement comprised in part a species of license, under which, assuming adherence to certain conditions, Plaintiff and others similarly situated could maintain theirpresence at a specifically identified public property overnight, in tents.7. Prior to November 8, 2011, the City of Dallas appeared to be adhering to the terms of
.8. On November 8, 2011, the City of Dallas transmitted the correspondence attachedhereto as
to counsel for Plaintiffs.9.
, four allegations of material breach of the settlementagreement by Occupy Dallas.
also contains immaterial allegations and recitationsconcerning alleged criminal conduct that occurred off the property subject of the settlementagreement, and that have no bearing on the alleged breaches of the agreement made the subjectof
clearly indicates the City’s intention to revoke its adherence to the terms of the settlement agreement on or before November 12, 2011 at 5:00 p.m.11. Plaintiffs contend, in light of
contains terms and statements