# In re City of Houston Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0776 **In re City of Houston, No. 25-0776, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering a default judgment against the City of Houston and its police officer after its plenary power expired, because Guzman's notice of nonsuit, re-filed by the court as a signed order, had already disposed of all claims and actions.** Practice areas: governmental immunity, civil procedure ## Key issues - Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering a default judgment against the City of Houston and its police officer after its plenary power expired, because Guzman's notice of nonsuit, re-filed by the court as a signed order, had already disposed of all claims and actions. - Alternatively, whether the court abused its discretion by failing to perform the ministerial act of entering a final judgment on that nonsuit, and whether the default judgment is void because Guzman did not plead facts affirmatively demonstrating the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. ## Factual History This original proceeding arises from the same October 7, 2020 collision between Magdalena Guzman and a Houston Police Department patrol car driven by Officer Jessica Lee Moore that is the subject of the petition for review in No. 25-0774. Guzman sued Officer Moore, the City of Houston and Harris County in the 165th District Court of Harris County on October 7, 2022 (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 4, 13). ## Procedural History After Harris County moved to dismiss, Guzman filed a "notice of partial non-suit" on November 10, 2022 that states "This is final and disposes of all claims and actions made the basis of this lawsuit," and the trial court re-filed it as an order signed that day. When Guzman moved for default against the City and Moore in October 2023, the City argued plenary power had expired; the court nonetheless signed an interlocutory default judgment on December 1, 2023. The City and Moore sought mandamus in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, which denied relief in No. 14-24-00139-CV when it affirmed in the companion appeal, City of Houston v. Guzman, No. 14-23-00957-CV, 2025 WL 2048198 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 22, 2025, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 13-15; Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, PDF p. 7). The relators petitioned for mandamus on September 5, 2025, and Guzman responded January 5, 2026. The case was abated on February 6, 2026 and reinstated on June 12, 2026 when the Court lifted the abatement; the Court requested briefs on the merits on June 19, 2026, relators filed on August 19, 2026, and on September 28, 2026 Guzman was given ten days to file her late brief (Docket). ## Issues Presented 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering default judgment against the City and Officer Moore after plenary power expired. 2. Alternatively, whether it abused its discretion by failing to perform the ministerial act of entering final judgment on a notice of nonsuit stating "This is final and disposes of all claims and actions made the basis of this lawsuit." 3. Alternatively, whether the default judgment was void because Guzman failed to plead facts to affirmatively demonstrate subject-matter jurisdiction (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 4). ## Legal Arguments **Relators (City of Houston and Jessica Lee Moore):** The trial court entered final judgment by refiling Guzman's nonsuit as a signed order, so its plenary power expired before it signed the default judgment, and a judgment signed after plenary power expires is an abuse of discretion remediable by mandamus. Alternatively, the court was obliged to perform the ministerial act of entering a final judgment on the nonsuit. The default judgment is also void because Guzman's petition pleads no facts affirmatively demonstrating jurisdiction over a Tort Claims Act claim, including scope of employment and facts negating the emergency exception (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF pp. 4-6). **Real Party in Interest (Magdalena Guzman):** The partial nonsuit of Harris County did not clearly and unequivocally express an intent to be a final judgment as to the City, which it did not mention; it states it disposes of "all claims and actions" but not "all parties" and was at least ambiguous. She also argues she pleaded sufficient facts to establish waiver of immunity for a car crash caused by an employee driving a city-owned vehicle and alternatively should be allowed to amend (Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, PDF pp. 8-10, 13). Her merits brief is not yet on file. ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case As an original proceeding, the relators ask the Court to correct the trial court's entry of a default judgment after plenary power expired or without jurisdiction. They argue mandamus is appropriate because an order entered after plenary power expires, or without jurisdiction, is void (Brief on the Merits (Relator), PDF p. 4). ## Practice Area Tags governmental-immunity, civil-procedure ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Original proceeding for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court after the Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief from a default judgment against a city and its police officer. The case was abated February 6, 2026 and reinstated June 12, 2026. The Court requested briefs on the merits; the relators' brief is on file and the real party's brief is overdue. It is a companion to the petition for review in No. 25-0774. The Court has not yet granted or denied the petition. ## Amicus Involvement None --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0776. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.