Fairfield’s attorneys succeeded in having most claims against the city dismissed at the Thursday, March 28, 2019 hearing in the 87th District Court of Judge Patrick Simmons regarding Teague’s lawsuit alleging breaches to the Interlocal Definitive Agreement and Facilities Agreements signed between the two cities and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s (TDCJ) Boyd Unit in 1990 and 1992 respectively. Ultimately, Fairfield’s motion to dismiss the case was, for the majority, granted, and claims of Texas Open Meeting Act (TOMA) violations were severed to a separate case. “I am going to grant the Defendant’s [Fairfield] motion to dismiss on all other claims,” announced Judge Simmons, “including claims of due process, breach of fiduciary or implied duties, and declaratory or proprietary claims.” Judge Simmons’ ruling dismisses most claims against Fairfield, except the allegations of breach of contract, which will continue to be heard under cause number CV 18-334-B, and the numerous TOMA violation claims against them, to be filed under cause number CV 18-334-1. Included in this separate case are claims brought by Teague against Fairfield pursuant to violations of TOMA. That case will be heard Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. Teague intends to demonstrate a longstanding practice of Open Meeting Act violations and requests the court grant injunctive relief to prevent future violations. Teague seeks recovery of unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. Fairfield claims that Teague does not have standing to assert any of its TOMA claims against them as the municipality shares no overlapping jurisdiction with Fairfield and has failed to identify any facts demonstrating that it shares the same level of interest in, or the same degree of injury, as citizens of Fairfield or the general public. Fairfield is seeking partial summary judgment on these claims, asking the court to review the facts and decide the TOMA violation claims alleged in Teague’s suit. That case will be heard Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. Filed just hours before the hearing on March 28th with a new name joining theirs – that of Fairfield resident Nena Kathleen Price; was Teague’s Fourth Amended Original Petition and Verified Request for Injunctive Relief. Following that same hearing, Teague submitted their response to Fairfield’s previous motion for partial summary judgment, asking the court to deny Fairfield’s request. Fairfield previously filed that request with respect to all TOMA violations claims against them prior to September 18, 2015. Summary judgment refers to a pre-trial remedy that can be granted to resolve disputes involving legal interpretation when no significant facts are being contested. By filing for a partial summary judgment, Fairfield requested that the court decide the TOMA violation claims alleged in Teague’s suit.  The document filed by Teague states that the court must grant the motion unless they can produce competent evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact on each element of each claim. In Teague’s response, their attorney requests a continuance for the summary judgment hearing, set for Thursday, April 4th, so that they may conduct additional discovery; citing the court’s refusal to allow depositions to be taken in this matter until it rules on Fairfield’s First Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction. ‘This continuance is not sought for delay, but so that justice may be done,’ reads the request. The request for a continuance was not granted as of press time. Judge Simmons met privately with attorneys representing Teague and Fairfield for the first twenty minutes of Thursday’s hearing. Now six months into litigation, and in light of the court’s recent rulings, the two cases will continue to proceed through the 87th District Court to determine whether a breach of contract occurred, and the validity of the TOMA claims. Megan Hempel reporting.