HOUSTON - The 14th Court of Appeals affirmed an order of dismissal for want of jurisdiction in a lawsuit brought by Lamar Advantage Outdoor and filed against the Texas Department of Transportation and two of its officials.
According to the 14th Court’s opinion, the case is about outdoor sign regulation in Texas, and in particular TxDOT’s regulation of three signs in Harrison County.
On appeal, Lamar challenged the trial court’s granting of TxDOT’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
According to the opinion, Lamar asserts that it alleged proper waivers of sovereign immunity for three of its claims — its ultra vires claims against the two officials, its declaratory judgment claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, and its inverse condemnation claims against TxDOT for threatening unlawful regulatory action, and that they were therefore were erroneously dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
“The dispute in this case arises from three signs Lamar owns in Harrison County and the permits Lamar held for those signs,” the opinion states. “Each of the signs were nonconforming signs at the time the permits were first issued to their previous owners because each sign was not within 800 feet of a commercial or industrial area as required by TxDOT’s rules. On October 7, 2016, TxDOT officials sent Lamar three letters requesting the removal of the three signs based on the expiration of the permits associated with the signs (removal orders).
“The removal orders required Lamar to remove each ‘sign and its structure, at no cost to the State, within 45 days of receipt of this letter.’”
Lamar informed TxDot that it never received renewal notices, and tendered payment to TxDOT for a period since the 2011 expiration, and requested that TxDOT rescind the removal orders, the opinion states.
“Lamar’s allegations that TxDOT’s failed to exercise discretion favorably toward Lamar with respect to the expiration of these permits or their renewal does not equate to a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation of a vested rights,” the opinion states. “Because Lamar did not allege a viable taking, TxDOT retained its immunity from suit, and dismissal on TxDOT’s jurisdictional challenge was proper.”
Case No. 14-20-00362-CV