Bee Inspired, LLC v. Isabell et al

1 / 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
BEE INSPIRED, LLC,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-01252
ANDREW ISABELL, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First
Amended Complaint (Dkt. 24). After careful consideration of the briefing, the record, and
the applicable law, the Court GRANTS the Motion (Dkt. 24) and DISMISSES this
lawsuit.
I. 	FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff 	Bee 	Inspired, 	LLC 	(“Bee 	Inspired”) 	owns 	a 	tract 	of 	land 	within
unincorporated territory of Walker County, Texas (the “Property”). (Dkt. 23 at p. 3). Bee
Inspired purchased the Property from Pineywoods Ranch Partners, LLC (“Pineywoods”).
Id. Bee Inspired sought to develop the Property, and “Pineywoods submitted the
application for the Walker Country Floodplain Regulations Development Permits … on
behalf of” Bee Inspired. Id. Certain of the permits issued by Walker County “required all
subject properties to have been assigned a registered 9-1-1 addresses before being granted.”
(Id. at p. 4). As such, a member of Bee Inspired, Deborah May (“May”), submitted a 9-1-
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
February 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01252 Document 28 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2 / 6
1 address application via email. Id. Defendant Andy Isbell (“Isbell”), as the Director of
Planning and Development for the County, denied the application. Id.
Pineywoods 	petitioned 	the 	Walker 	County 	Commissioners 	Court 	(the
“Commissioners Court”) and “had the matter concerning the issuance of addresses and
development permits added to the agenda” for a public meeting. Id. At the meeting, the
Commissioners Court declined to approve the development permits and refused to name
the road providing access to the Property. (Id. at p. 6).
Now, Bee Inspired brings claims against Defendants for “ultra vires as to all
Defendants in their official capacities relating to the assignment of 9-1-1 addresses and
street names,” “ultra vires as to the County Judge and Commissioners in their official
capacities relating to the application of subdivision regulations and denial of development
permits,” and violations of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. 23
at pp. 11 – 21).
Bee Inspired seeks both money damages and equitable relief, requesting that the
Court issue an order compelling the Defendants to “comply with Texas law by” assigning
a registered 9-1-1 address to the Property, assigning a registered 9-1-1 street name to the
private road providing access to the Property, issuing all the development permits sought
by Bee Inspired, and “ceasing to require that [Bee Inspired] comply with the Subdivision
Regulations before permits for its Property are issued.” (Id. at p. 21).
Defendants move under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to dismiss all of Bee Inspired’s claims against them. (Dkt. 24). Defendants argue
Case 4:25-cv-01252 Document 28 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3 / 6
that this Court does not have jurisdiction over Bee Inspired’s claims and, in the alternative,
that Bee Inspired has failed to state a claim. Id.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A motion filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to
challenge the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court to hear a case. Ramming v.
United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). The party asserting that federal subject
matter jurisdiction exists bears the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the
evidence. Ballew v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 668 F.3d 777, 781 (5th Cir. 2012). Under
Rule 12(b)(1), the Court may consider any of the following: (1) the complaint alone; (2)
the complaint supplemented by the undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the
complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed
facts. Walch v. Adjutant General’s Department of Texas, 533 F.3d 289, 293 (5th Cir. 2008).
“A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the court
lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case.” Home Builders
Association of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, Mississippi, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th
Cir. 1998). “[S]tanding and ripeness are essential components of federal subject-matter
jurisdiction” and are challenged under Rule 12(b)(1). Rosa v. Am. Water Heater Co., 177
F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1032 (S.D. Tex. 2016) (quoting In re Jillian Morrison, L.L.C., 482 Fed.
Appx. 872, 875 (5th Cir. 2012)).
When “a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions,
the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any
Case 4:25-cv-01252 Document 28 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4 / 6
attack on the merits.” Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161. The Court finds that Bee Inspired’s claims
are appropriate for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and does not reach the parties’ arguments
under Rule 12(b)(6).
III. 	ANALYSIS
The Court finds that it does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Bee
Inspired’s claims because the claims are not ripe. As noted above, “[r]ipeness is a question
of law that implicates this court’s subject matter jurisdiction.” Urban Developers LLC v.
City of Jackson, 468 F.3d 281, 292 (5th Cir. 2006). “A court should dismiss a case for lack
of ‘ripeness’ when the case is abstract or hypothetical.” Orix Credit All., Inc. v. Wolfe, 212
F.3d 891, 895 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting New Orleans Pub. Sen., Inc. v. Council of New
Orleans, 833 F.2d 583, 586-87 (5th Cir. 1987)). To assess ripeness, courts evaluate “(1)
the fitness of the issues for judicial decision, and (2) the hardship to the parties of
withholding court consideration.” Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity
Comm’n, 70 F.4th 914, 930 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting Abbott Lab’ys v. Gardner, 387 U.S.
136, 149 (1967)) (cleaned up).
“[A] claim is ‘fit for judicial decision’ if it presents a pure question of law that needs
no further factual development.” Id. (citing New Orleans Pub. Serv., 833 F.2d at 586-87).
“This means that a claim is ripe so long as it is not ‘contingent [on] future events that may
not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Roake v. Brumley, 141 F.4th 614,
629 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Book People, Inc. v. Wong, 91 F.4th 318, 333 (5th Cir. 2024))
(alteration in original). The Court finds that these claims need further factual development.
Case 4:25-cv-01252 Document 28 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5 / 6
Bee Inspired argues that its claims are ripe “because there are no additional factual
developments that would put the Court in a better position to rule on [Bee Inspired’s]
causes of action.” (Dkt. 25 at p. 8). However, Bee Inspired admits that it has not filed the
requisite application to receive the sought-after permits. (Dkt. 25 at p. 11) (“[Bee Inspired]
never alleged that it [] submitted the development permit application form.”). Further,
while May did file an application for a 9-1-1 address, the application was incomplete. (Dkt.
25 at p. 10).
On this point, Bee Inspired’s argument is persuasive: it is unable to file a complete
application for a 9-1-1 address until Defendants assign the road providing access to the
Property a name—which Defendants have already refused to do. Id. However, Bee Inspired
itself never requested that Defendants assign the road a name. (Dkt. 23 at p. 4). Instead,
Pineywoods, allegedly “acting on behalf of” Bee Inspired, requested that the matter be
addressed at a public meeting. Id. Yet Pineywoods was the previous owner, and Bee
Inspired owned the Property at the time of the request. Id. In this way, Bee Inspired has not
taken the action necessary to support its claims—namely, submitting complete requests for
the naming of the road, the assignment of 9-1-1 addresses, and the sought-after permits.
Instead, it anticipates that Defendants will deny these requests, just as it did for the previous
landowners.
The Court finds that this matter needs further factual development. Without Bee
Inspired having pursued the permits itself, its claims remain contingent on a presumed
future denial of such applications by Defendants. Such denial may not occur as anticipated,
Case 4:25-cv-01252 Document 28 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6 / 6
or at all. Accordingly, the Court finds that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
these claims, and the motion must be granted.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 24) and DISMISSES
this lawsuit WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Final judgment is to follow.
Signed at Houston, Texas on February 20, 2026.
Case 4:25-cv-01252 Document 28 Filed 02/20/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6