Nueces County, Nueces County Sheriff and Nueces County Civil Service Commission v. Julio Soliz ( 2005 )

                              NUMBER 13-05-157-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

NUECES COUNTY, NUECES

COUNTY SHERIFF, AND NUECES

COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,  Appellants,

                                                             v.                               

JULIO SOLIZ,                                                                                   Appellee.

      On appeal from the 214th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                          Before Justices Yañez, Castillo, and Garza

                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza

Appellee was discharged from the Nueces County Sheriff=s Department and subsequently filed a grievance with the Nueces County Civil Service Commission. The Commission held a hearing and received evidence on appellee=s grievance. It later issued a Afinding and decision@ unanimously dismissing appellee=s grievance against the sheriff=s department without stating the basis for the dismissal.  Appellee then filed suit in district court against appellants, Nueces County, the Nueces County Sheriff=s Department, and the Nueces County Civil Service Commission.  Appellants, in turn, filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the Commission=s final decision did not Ademote, suspend, or remove@ appellee from his employment position but merely dismissed his grievance.  See Tex. Loc. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 158.012(a) (Vernon 1999). Appellants relied on Longoria v. Nueces County Civ. Serv. Comm=n, No. 13‑03‑316‑CV, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 6311, *1B3 (Corpus Christi, July 15, 2004, pet. denied) (memorandum opinion), a decision in which this Court held that the district court had no jurisdiction to review the Commission=s dismissal of a grievance for failure to comply with the Commission=s rules and time line.  The district court denied appellants= plea.  On appeal, we affirm the district court=s ruling. 

The sparse record before this Court does not indicate that the Commission dismissed appellee=s grievance for failure to comply with the Commission=s rules and time line, as the Commission did in Longoria.  To the contrary, the record indicates that the Commission reviewed evidence regarding appellee=s grievance, decided the grievance lacked merit, and dismissed the grievance, thereby upholding appellant=s removal from employment.  Based on this record, we conclude that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear appellee=s claims against appellants.  See Tex. Loc. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 158.012(a) (providing a right to appeal to district court for a Acounty employee who, on final decision by the commission, is demoted, suspended, or removed from the employee=s

position@).  Appellants= sole issue is overruled and the order of the trial court is affirmed.               

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and

filed this the 14th day of July, 2005.