EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Webb County Appraisal District and United Independent School District ( 2015 )

ACCEPTED
04-14-00343-CV
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
ONE SHELL PLAZA ABU DHABI HOUSTON
1/12/2015 12:07:46 PM
910 LOUISIANA AUSTIN LONDON KEITH HOTTLE
HOUSTON, TEXAS BEIJING MOSCOW CLERK
77002-4995 BRUSSELS NEW YORK
DALLAS PALO ALTO
TEL +1 713.229.1234 DUBAI RIO DE JANEIRO
FAX +1 713.229.1522 HONG KONG RIYADH
BakerBotts.com WASHINGTON
FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
January 12, 2015 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
01/12/2015 12:07:46 PM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
Paul R. Elliott
077971.0126 Clerk
713.229.1226
FAX 713.229.2726
paul.elliott@bakerbotts.com
By Electronic Filing
Mr. Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Fourth Court of Appeals
Cadena-Reeves Justice Center
300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200
San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037
Re: Case No. 04-14-00343-CV, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Webb
County Appraisal District and United Independent School District
Dear Mr. Hottle:
The United Independent School District filed a notice of additional authority on January
8, 2015. This letter, which I respectfully request that you circulate to Justices Angelini, Barnard,
and Martinez, provides context for that authority.
The purportedly relevant new authority—the Twelfth Court of Appeals’ opinion in No.
12-13-00393-CV, Valerus Compression Services v. Gregg County Appraisal District—is
irrelevant to the present appeal. The School District’s own appellee’s brief (at p. 5) correctly
stated that this “case does not involve the merits of Exterran’s protest under Tax Code §23.1241
. . . . The issue in this case is whether Exterran, pursuant to Tax Code § 42.08 (b), has forfeited
their right to proceed to a final determination of their appeal . . . .”
For that reason, the construction in Valerus of Section 23.1241 can play no role in the
jurisdictional dispute currently pending before this Court, and the School District’s submission
of that case as relevant authority is misplaced. If anything, it further demonstrates the School
District’s and the trial court’s common error of misapprehending the crucial distinction between
jurisdiction and merits, and thus provides yet another reason for this Court to reverse and remand
the judgment below, so that the issue of Section 23.1241’s proper construction can be finally
addressed on the merits.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Elliott
Active 17677751.2
Mr. Keith E. Hottle -2- January 12, 2015
cc: A. Dylan Wood
Alberto Alarcon
Paul Saenz
Benjamin A. Geslison
Renn Nielson
Active 17677751.2