City of Aledo, City of Angleton, City of Anna, City of Aubrey, City of Bonham, City of Brownsville, City of Bulverde, City of Cibolo, City of Clyde, City of College Station, City of Crandall, City of Denison, City of Denton, City of Edcouch, City of Elsa, City of Fate, City of Grand Prairie, City of Hutto, City of Kaufman, City of La Villa, City of Lockhart, City of McKinney, City of Navasota, City of Parker, City of Van Alstyne, and Aubrey Municipal Development District v. State of Texas, Attorney General Kenneth Paxton (In His Official Capacity), Acting Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Kelly Hancock (In His Official Capacity), and the Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

ACCEPTED
15-25-00086-Cv
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/8/2026 2:51 PM
No. 15-25-00086-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS CLERK
FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN
AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
_______________________________________________________
1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM
CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, CITY OF ALEDO, CITY OF ANGLETON , CITY
CHRISTOPHER
Clerk
A. PRINE
OF
AUBREY, CITY OF BULVERDE, CITY OF CLYDE, CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, CITY
OF CRANDALL, CITY OF DENISON, CITY OF DENTON, CITY OF EDCOUCH, CITY OF
ELSA, CITY OF FATE, CITY OF HUTTO, CITY OF KAUFMAN, CITY OF LA VILLA,
CITY OF LOCKHART, CITY OF MCKINNEY, CITY OF NAVASOTA, CITY OF PARKER,
CITY OF VAN ALSTYNE, AND AUBREY MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
Appellants – Plaintiffs
CITY OF ANNA, CITY OF BONHAM, CITY OF BROWNSVILE, AND CITY OF
CIBOLO
Appellants – Intervenor Plaintiffs
2020 LONG TAIL TRAIL INVESTMENTS, LLC
Appellant – Intervenor Defendant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, ATTORNEY GENERAL KENNETH PAXTON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY, ACTING TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS KELLY
HANCOCK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND THE OFFICE OF THE TEXAS
COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Appellees – Defendants
_______________________________________________________

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS – INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS CITY OF ANNA
AND CITY OF BONHAM
_____________________________________________________________
Wolfe, Tidwell & McCoy, LLP
David Overcash
ORAL ARGUMENT David.overcash@wtmlaw.net
REQUESTED SBN 24075516
Clark McCoy
2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300
Frisco, Texas 75034
972.712.3530 telephone
972.712.3540 facsimile
i
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL1

Appellants: City of Anna, Texas
Plaintiff-Intervenor in court below

City of Bonham, Texas
Plaintiff-Intervenor in court below

Appellants’ Counsel: Wolfe, Tidwell & McCoy, LLP

David Overcash
David.overcash@wtmlaw.net
SBN 24075516
Clark McCoy
SBN 90001803
2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300
Frisco, Texas 75034
972.712.3530 telephone
972.712.3540 facsimile

Other Appellants: City of Grand Prairie, City of Aledo, City of
Angleton, City of Aubrey, City of Bulverde,
City of Clyde, City of College Station, City
of Crandall, City of Denison, City of
Denton, City of Edcouch, City of Elsa, City
of Fate, City of Hutto, City of Kaufman, City
of La Villa, City of Lockhart, City of
McKinney, City of Navasota, City of Parker,
City of Van Alstyne, Aubrey Municipal
Development District
Original Plaintiffs in court below

Other Appellants’ Counsel: Messer, Fort, PLLC

Timothy A. Dunn
William Andrew Messer
andy@txmunicipallaw.com

1 Defendant-Intervenor 2020 Long Tail Trail Investments, LLC has been dismissed from

this suit by order of the court dated December 29, 2025.

ii
Bradford E. Bullock
Arturo D. Rodriguez
6371 Preston Rd Ste 200
Frisco, Texas 75034
972.668.6400 telephone
972.668.6414 facsimile

Additional Appellants: City of Brownsville, City of Cibolo
Plaintiff-intervenors in court below, joined in
original plaintiff filings on appeal

Counsel: Messer, Fort, PLLC

William Andrew Messer
andy@txmunicipallaw.com
Bradford E. Bullock
Arturo D. Rodriguez
6371 Preston Rd Ste 200
Frisco, Texas 75034
972.668.6400 telephone
972.668.6414 facsimile

<in court below, also appeared for Brownsville
the following attorneys>

Staff Counsel, being:
Lena Chaisson-Munoz
Jennifer Avendano
Guillermo S. “Will” Trevino

<in court below, also appeared for Cibolo the
following attorneys>

Hyde Kelley LLP
George E. Hyde
Matthew L. Weston

iii
Appellees: State of Texas, Attorney General Kenneth
Paxton (in his official capacity), Acting
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
Kelly Hancock (in his official capacity) 2,
and the Office of the Texas Comptroller of
Public Accounts

Appellees’ Counsel: Office of the Texas Attorney General

Lynn Saarinen
Lynn.saarinen@oag.texas.gov
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
512-936-1309 telephone
512-320-0667 facsimile

2 As replacing former Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar.

iv
Table of Contents

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL .................................................. ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................... vi
REPLY ARGUMENT .................................................................................. 1
I. Incorporation of Co-Appellant Reply Brief ............................................ 1
II. Comment on Standard of Review ........................................................ 1
III. Reply Argument Re: Repleading. ........................................................ 2
IV. Reply Argument Re: Anna’s Motion to Modify Judgment .................... 5
PRAYER..................................................................................................... 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE...................................................................... 8
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ............................................................. 8

v
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004)

................................................................................................................ 1

Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (2007) ...... 3, 4, 5

Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006)............................................ 2

vi
REPLY ARGUMENT

I. Incorporation of Co-Appellant Reply Brief

Other appellant parties in this case will file a reply brief addressing the

issues common to all municipalities appearing in the suit. In the interests of

judicial economy, Anna and Bonham incorporate by reference herein all of

the arguments, facts, and authority presented in the reply brief(s) filed by the

City of Grand Prairie, et al. (“GP Group”), as if set forth herein in full, save

and except those aspects of said briefs which are unique, specific, or limited

to municipalities other than Anna or Bonham. This is intended to include, but

not necessarily be limited to, incorporation of arguments presented by the

GP Group in reply to Sections I through IV (inclusive) of the Appellees’ brief

filed November 14, 2025 (“Appellees’ Brief”). 3

II. Comment on Standard of Review
Only where the pleadings affirmatively negate the existence of

jurisdiction may a plea to the jurisdiction be granted without allowing the

plaintiff an opportunity to amend. 4 If a petition contains multiple claims, it

should not be dismissed just because the court lacks jurisdiction over some

3 Anna and Bonham can supply additional detail or supplemental briefing regarding the

incorporation of content of reply argument upon request.
4 See Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004).

1
of them. 5 Appellees state in their brief that “[t]he amended [plea to the

jurisdiction] was not to challenge the Cities’ [GP Group] or Intervenor

Appellants’ claims. The amended [plea] was for the purpose of determining

if the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction.”6 While Appellees are entitled

to describe the “purpose” of their filing as they see fit, Texas jurisprudence

such as Thomas calls for courts to assess subject matter jurisdiction on a

claim-by-claim basis.7

III. Reply Argument Re: Repleading.

Appellees’ Brief asserts, without citation, that Anna and Bonham’s

“pleadings alone demonstrated that the jurisdictional defects could not be

cured.”8 In the absence of express findings of fact or conclusions of law from

the court below which identify what—if any—jurisdictional defect exists with

respect to Anna or Bonham’s live pleadings, this self-serving conclusory

statement must be rejected. Further, Appellees fail to explain why the

purported jurisdictional defects in Anna and/or Bonham’s pleadings cannot

be cured by amendment.9 Instead, Appellees appear to rely on an contention

5 See generally Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. 2006).
6 Appellees’ Brief at Sec. V, Issue 1, item (2)(p. 72).

7 See generally Thomas.

8 Appellees’ Brief at Sec. V, Issue 1, preamble (p. 70).

9 See generally Appellees’ Brief.

2
within their filings below that lacks any legal citation—that Anna and Bonham

have a burden to “demonstrate that they can cure any jurisdictional defect in

their pleadings to salvage their claims against the State of Texas.” 10

First, Anna and Bonham note that the assertion above is specific to

one appellee (State of Texas), but there are additional parties-defendant in

this suit: the Texas Attorney General, the Texas Comptroller of Public

Accounts, and the Office of the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

Appellees have failed to explain why jurisdictional defect arguments specific

to the State of Texas should be applied to other parties.

Second, Appellees improperly seek to entirely “flip the burden” relating

to amendment of pleadings to address jurisdictional defects. Stated most

simply: to the extent such any burden falls on the plaintiffs/appellants in this

context, Anna and Bonham would “demonstrate” their ability to cure

jurisdictional defects by amending their pleadings. As explained in Koseoglu

(cited by Appellees’ Brief at p. 70) and other cases, only jurisdictional

evidence and the pleadings themselves are to be considered in ruling on a

plea to the jurisdiction.11 It is unclear what mechanism Appellees would

10 20 CR 4725 (italics added).

11 Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (2007); see also County of

Cameron v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 549, 555 (Tex. 2002).

3
contend Anna and Bonham should have used to “demonstrate” the ability to

cure “defects” or jurisdictional challenges which had not yet been found to

have any merit in the trial court. Further, Appellees have not at any point

identified content of Anna’s or Bonham’s pleadings which would preclude

demonstrating jurisdiction through amendment—nor has any appellee or

defendant produced even a scintilla of jurisdictional evidence sufficient to

render all potential pleading amendments entirely futile.

This Court should also reject the Appellees’ attempt to prematurely

conclude the case under theories already rejected by the Texas Supreme

Court. Appellees contend that Anna and Bonham “had an opportunity to

replead”, and note that both of them elected to amend their live pleadings

prior to the decision on the plea to the jurisdiction in the court below, and

contend that should deny any further amendment. 12 The Koseoglu court

assessed whether or not a plaintiff should be considered to have “a

reasonable opportunity to amend” pleadings prior to the trial court finding

merit in the jurisdictional plea from the defendant, and in pertinent part the

Texas Supreme Court’s opinion states:

Thus, the court of appeals concluded, [plaintiff] has not been given a
reasonable opportunity to amend his pleadings because the trial court
never found merit in [defendant’s] jurisdictional plea . . . On this point,
we generally agree with the court of appeals. [Defendant’s] proposed
12 See Appellees’ Brief at Sec. IV, Issue 1, preamble (p. 70).

4
rule would essentially allow governmental entities the unjust
advantage of being not only a litigant, but also the judge of the
plaintiff’s pleadings . . . we agree that [plaintiff] deserves the
opportunity to amend his pleadings[.]13

Even if this Court were to find the trial court came to the correct

conclusion regarding whether the live pleadings of Anna or Bonham

established subject matter jurisdiction, they are entitled to a reasonable

opportunity to amend their pleadings after there is a decision issued

which finds merit in the plea to the jurisdiction—i.e., until it is established

by the court that there are any defects to be cured. Ideally, one would

hope that the course of proceedings would allow such defects to be

identified with particularity so they can be meaningfully addressed in an

amended pleading (i.e., if standing was at issue—what component of

standing?) rather than in generic rulings which leave everyone to

speculate as to what purported defect would justify dismissal.

IV. Reply Argument Re: Anna’s Motion to Modify Judgment

As noted in prior briefing and the Appellee’s Brief, the City of Anna

filed a motion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 329b and

alternative relief, which was pending at the time the court below closed

the entire case. 14 Appellees dispute the accuracy of Anna’s discovery

13 Koseoglu at 839-840.

14 41 CR 9153; see also Appellees’ Brief at Sec. V, Issue 2, point 2 (p. 74).

5
of evidence that a state agency—the Texas Commission on

Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”)—had issued official documents and

taken regulatory actions that enforced SB 2038’s removal provisions

with respect to a petitioner creating a municipal utility district (“MUD”)

partially located in Anna’s extraterritorial jurisdiction.15 Confusingly,

despite Anna’s provision of documents reflecting that TCEQ had

declared the land at issue was not within the ETJ of any municipality

when considering the petition for creation of the MUD, Appellees

present only a true-but-immaterial statement that the property owner

had submitted a petition for release from Anna’s ETJ which was

denied. 16

Entirely unaddressed is any consideration of whether Anna’s denial

of the ETJ-release-petition may have been entirely justified, if not

required—by the requirements of SB 2038 itself, or on the basis of

denial of municipal consent required for any ETJ reduction per former

Texas Government Code § 42.023, or on any of the various

constitutional challenges presented in the instant suit. Petitions are not

15 See 41 CR 9159-94 (Exhibit 1 to Anna’s TRCP 329b motion). Various highlighted

passages warrant special attention with respect to TCEQ activity. See 41 CR 9162
(TCEQ published notice of petition for MUD, dated Dec. 4, 2024); 9166 (TCEQ order
of Feb. 27, 2025); and 9175-76 (TCEQ memo of Feb. 6, 2025)
16 See Appellees’ Brief at p. 74.

6
sufficient to release property from ETJ unless they meet certain

requisites. TCEQ effectively declared that the land at issue was

entirely outside all municipal ETJ and denied Anna the benefit of the

conditions for its approval of the MUD creation. It is unknown as of this

writing whether TCEQ had actual knowledge that the landowner had

submitted an ETJ-release-petition that Anna had denied, but the net

effect of the agency’s actions constitute enforcement of SB 2038’s

release provisions. Anna should be provided an opportunity to amend

its pleadings for joinder of additional parties prior to closure of the

entire case in light of these undisputed facts regarding TCEQ

enforcement of SB 2038.

PRAYER

Anna and Bonham respectfully request that this Court reverse the

judgment of the trial court embodied by the Apr. 14 Order, and either render

judgment denying the Appellees’ pleas to the jurisdiction in their entirety or

in part, and/or remand the case to the court below for further proceedings

including resolution of pending motions, and to provide Anna, Bonham, and

other plaintiffs with a meaningful opportunity to amend their pleadings.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ David Overcash
David Overcash

7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy

of Appellants’ Reply Brief, via the Court’s CM/ECF system on January 8,

2026.

/s/ David Overcash
David Overcash

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I certify that this document was produced on a computer using

Microsoft Word and contains less than 3000 words, as determined by the

computer software’s word-count function, excluding the sections of the

documents listed in Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1).

/s/ David Overcash
David Overcash

8
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Crystal Adams on behalf of David Overcash
Bar No. 24075516
cadams@wtmlaw.net
Envelope ID: 109826750
Filing Code Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument
Filing Description: Reply Brief of Appellants
Status as of 1/8/2026 2:59 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Jennifer Holt jennifer.holt@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Allison Collins 24127467 Acollins@fosterswift.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Lena Chaisson-Munoz lena.munoz@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Cole Wilson Cole.Wilson@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Tristan AGarza tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Lynn Saarinen lynn.saarinen@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Will S.Trevino will.trevino@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Sherry Brown sherry@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Andy Messer andy@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Brad Bullock brad@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Timothy Dunn Taddunn@txmunicipallaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Todd Disher todd@lehotskykeller.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

William Thompson will@lkcfirm.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Cole Wilson cole.wilson@oag.texas.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Guillermo Trevino will.trevino@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Lena Chaisson-Munoz lena.munoz@brownsvilletx.gov 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

George Hyde ghyde@txlocalgovlaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Matthew Weston mweston@txlocalgovlaw.com 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

David Overcash david.overcash@wtmlaw.net 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT

Clark McCoy cmccoy@wtmlaw.net 1/8/2026 2:51:08 PM SENT