EZPAWN’s Suit Against the City of Dallas Barred by Governmental Immunity
April 2, 2013The Dallas City Code contains certain provisions governing the activities of “Alternative Financial Establishments.” Under this section of the code, these establishments are defined to include “car title loan business[es], check cashing business[es], or money transfer business[es]” but not businesses that “provide financial services that are accessory to another main use.” Last year, the City informed Texas EZPAWN that its loan service business qualified as an alternative financial establishment under the code. EZPAWN disagreed and filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that its loan services business did not fall within the code’s definition. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that governmental immunity barred EZPAWN’s suit and that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act did not apply because the governmental immunity waiver in that ordinance only applies to suits challenging the validity of a ordinance whereas EZPAWN’s suit merely seeks a construction or interpretation of the ordinance. The Court of Appeals agreed with the City, finding that the UDJA does not waive the City’s governmental immunity because EZPAWN did not seek to invalidate the provision. It therefore reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the petition with prejudice.
