Recently, The “Times” published an update on the continuing litigation between the cities of Teague and Fairfield. Included in that review were documents filed by Teague’s attorneys just hours before the parties’ most recent hearing on March 28th addressing their allegations of Texas Open Meeting Act violations committed by Fairfield.
In those documents was the name of an additional plaintiff, Nena Kathleen Price, joining Teague in their suit against Fairfield.
Following publication of that article, Price denied joining the City of Teague in the lawsuit.
“That is not going to take place,” Price wrote in an April 2nd Facebook message to The “Times.” “I don’t know how that got out.”
When contacted by The “Times,” Price described her confusion regarding the legal processes at hand, claiming that she was added to the suit without her knowledge. According to Price, she and other unnamed citizens of Fairfield were in contact with Teague attorneys regarding joining the suit against Fairfield, but says she was never informed that any action would be taken.
However, Price said she misunderstood the nature of those discussions and ultimately found herself listed as a co-plaintiff in not one, but two civil cases involving the two cities.
At the March 28th hearing, Judge Patrick Simmons ruled to dismiss the majority of claims made by Teague against Fairfield, with the exception of allegations of breach of contract.
Judge Simmons also granted Fairfield’s motion to sever the TOMA violation claims against them to a separate case, designated CV-18-334-1. The first hearing for this case is set for Wednesday, April 24th in the 87th District Court.
When Fairfield’s attorneys filed their April 3rd motion for partial summary judgment in the newly separated TOMA case, they named both the City of Teague and Nena Kathleen Price as the plaintiffs.
Subsequently, the cities’ April 4th hearing was cancelled.
Now naming the City of Fairfield and its Mayor Kenneth Hughes in his official capacity as the defendants in the TOMA case, Teague’s attorneys filed their fifth amended original petition and request for injunctive relief on April 5th.
These documents state that Teague intends to conduct discovery in this case and is suing Fairfield, alleging “an abhorrent pattern of Open Meetings Act violations too numerous to list here.”
Teague asks the court to affirm that Fairfield has committed these violations, ruling that those actions taken by Fairfield’s Council during innumerable meetings names in the suit be declared void, and order Fairfield to cease committing these violations.
The City of Teague also requests that the court assert that the City of Fairfield’s 2018 budget ordinance was not passed in accordance with the law and therefore, Fairfield’s expenditures, so far this fiscal year, are illegal and improper.
Furthermore, Teague asks that the court order Fairfield to pay necessary attorney’s fees and grant them a judgment for all costs of the suit. Read The “Times” account of the cost of the lawsuit on this week’s front page.
On April 10th, a partial non-suit document stating the “Nena Kathleen Price no longer desires to prosecute this suit against City of Fairfield,” was filed, effectively removing Price as a plaintiff in the suit.
The two cities will return to the court of Judge Simmons on April 24th at 1:30 p.m.