In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00161-CV
____________________
VETTE HOLDINGS, L.L.C. AND TIMBER CROSSING, L.P., Appellants
V.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND ANGEL MENDEZ, Appellees
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-07-06960 CV
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After the Texas Workforce Commission (the “Commission”) determined
that Angel Mendez was entitled to unemployment benefits, appellants Vette
Holdings, L.L.C. and Timber Crossing, L.P. appealed the decision to the County
Court at Law No. 2. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial
court granted. In a single issue, appellants challenge the trial court’s decision to
grant the Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction. We affirm the trial court’s order
dismissing appellants’ lawsuit.
1
“Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law.” Tex.
Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).
Accordingly, we review a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction under a
de novo standard. Id. In its plea to the jurisdiction, the Commission acknowledged
that section 212.201 of the Texas Labor Code waives a governmental entity’s
immunity from suit; however, suit must be filed in the county of the claimant’s
residence, and the Commission argues that appellants failed to timely file in the
proper county. Appellants filed suit in Montgomery County, but Mendez resides in
Harris County. Relying on section 61.062 of the Texas Labor Code, appellants
responded that the filing requirement is not jurisdictional. The trial court disagreed
and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
On appeal, appellants contend that Chapter 61 of the Texas Labor Code
applies to this case and that its filing requirement is a question of venue, not
jurisdiction. 1 Chapter 61 “contains all of the procedural requirements for
maintaining actions under the Payday Act, which governs individuals’ claims for
earned but unpaid wages, independent of employment status or unemployment
benefits.” Instrument Specialties Co., Inc. v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 924 S.W.2d 420,
422 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, writ denied); see Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 61.062
1
Appellants cited section 61.062 in their petition.
2
(West 2006). Appeals from a Commission decision regarding these types of claims
must be filed in the county of the claimant’s residence. Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §
61.062(d). The Dallas Court of Appeals has found that this filing requirement is
not jurisdictional. Kshatrya v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, 97 S.W.3d 825, 831 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.).
Unlike Chapter 61, Chapter 212 of the Labor Code applies to suits brought
under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. Instrument Specialties Co.,
924 S.W.2d at 422. Section 212.201 “establishes jurisdictional prerequisites for
appealing a TWC decision granting or denying benefits.” Richardson v. Tex.
Workforce Comm’n, No. 01-13-00403-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6115, at *5
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 5, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see Stoker
v. TWC Comm’rs, 402 S.W.3d 926, 929 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, no pet.); see
also Heart Hosp. IV, L.P. v. King, 116 S.W.3d 831, 837 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003,
pet. denied). An aggrieved party may appeal a final decision of the Commission by
bringing suit in a court of competent jurisdiction on or after the date on which the
decision is final, but no later than the fourteenth day after the finality date. Tex.
Lab. Code Ann. § 212.201(a) (West 2006). The suit must be filed in the county of
the claimant’s residence. Id. § 212.204(1) (West 2015). Failure to meet section
212.201’s jurisdictional requirements precludes judicial review of the
3
Commission’s decision regarding unemployment benefits. Richardson, 2014 Tex.
App. LEXIS 6115, at *6.
In this case, the Commission determined that Mendez was entitled to receive
unemployment benefits from appellants. The Commission advised appellants of
their right to appeal under Chapter 212. Because this case deals with
unemployment benefits, Chapter 212 applies and appellants’ reliance on Chapter
61 is misplaced. See Richardson, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 6115, at *5; see also
Instrument Specialties Co., 924 S.W.2d at 422. Appellants were required to
comply with section 212.201’s jurisdictional requirements. See Richardson, 2014
Tex. App. LEXIS 6115, at *6; see also Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.034 (West
2013) (“Statutory prerequisites to a suit . . . are jurisdictional requirements in all
suits against a governmental entity.”).
The Commission’s judgment became final on June 20, 2013. See Tex. Lab.
Code Ann § 212.201(a). Appellants timely filed their petition on July 2, but in the
incorrect county, and the record does not indicate that appellants sought to file in
the correct county before expiration of the statutory filing deadline. Because
appellants failed to file suit in the proper county within the statutory deadline, the
trial court properly granted the Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction. See King,
116 S.W.3d at 835-37 (When King timely filed suit in the wrong county and filed
4
in the correct county only after the statutory deadline had passed, the trial court
should have granted the Commission’s plea to the jurisdiction.). We overrule issue
one and affirm the trial court’s order dismissing appellants’ lawsuit for lack of
jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on March 23, 2015
Opinion Delivered May 7, 2015
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
5