author: KENT C. SULLIVAN, Justice.

text:
    In re CHOICE! ENERGY, L.P., E. Javier Loya, OTC Energy Holdings, L.P., Choice! Power, L.P. and Choice! Energy Services Retail, L.P., Relators.
    No. 14-10-00359-CV.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.).
    Oct. 21, 2010.

      Jonathan Michael Hyman, James J. Or-miston, Houston, for relators.
    Howard Lynn Steele, Mo Taherzadeh, Houston, for real party in interest.
    Panel consists of Justices BROWN, SULLIVAN, and CHRISTOPHER.
   OPINION

KENT C. SULLIVAN, Justice.

On April 23, 2010, relators, Choice! Energy, L.P., E. Javier Loya, OTC Energy Holdings, L.P., Choice! Power, L.P. and Choice! Energy Services Retail, L.P., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex.R.App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this Court to compel the Honorable Steven E. Kirkland, presiding judge of the 215th District Court of Harris County, to set aside his February 22, 2010 contempt order. We conditionally grant the petition.

Background

In 1998, Choice! Natural Gas sued Ame-rex Power, Ltd., Amerex Natural Gas I, Ltd. (collectively, “Amerex”), Gina Musac-hia, and Jon T. Mulvihill, asserting claims related to the Amerex’s solicitation and recruitment of Musachia and Mulvihill, who were former Choice! Natural Gas employees. Choice! Natural Gas had employment agreements with Musachia and Mul-vihill, containing covenants not to compete. The parties settled the case and, on November 6, 1998, the trial court signed an agreed permanent injunction and final judgment.

The November 6, 1998 judgment contains reciprocal paragraphs prohibiting the solicitation and recruitment of the parties’ current or former employees. The November 6, 1998 judgment states with respect to Choice! Natural Gas:

CHOICE!, along with all entities controlled by or under the common control with CHOICE! (which CHOICE! hereby stipulates it is authorized to bind to this Agree Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment), including CHOICE! Har-bour, Inc., Janvin Co., E.J. Loya, Inc., CHOICE! Energy Consulting, Inc., CHOICE! Energy (NE), Limited Partnership and CHOICE! Power & Light, Inc. (hereinafter collectively the “CHOICE! Companies”), together with their respective shareholders, directors, officers, partners, agents, employees, servants, representatives and all persons in active concert or participation with them, and all other persons who receive actual notice of this order, shall cease, desist and refrain from, either directly or indirectly, on behalf of either themselves or any other person or entity, engaging in any soliciting for employment, or otherwise recruiting for employment, the current or former employees of the Amerex Companies if the employment resulting from such solicitation or recruitment would result in a violation of any provision contained in said employee’s preexisting employment agreement with the Amerex Companies, provided, however, that the CHOICE! Companies will not be prohibited from hiring any former employee of the Ame-rex Companies after the 548th day following that employee’s termination of employment with the Amerex Companies.

On November 24, 2009, almost ten years after the 1998 judgment became final, four of Amerex Brokers, LLC’s employees— Allen Schoephoerster, Ben Nigh, Martin Holmes, and Bram Taylor (collectively, the “Brokers”) — resigned. Each of them signed employment contracts with Choice! Power, L.P. on December 1, 2009.

On December 22, 2009, Amerex filed a motion in the 1998 lawsuit for contempt and to enforce the agreed permanent injunction and final judgment against rela-tors. In the motion, it alleged that rela-tors violated the terms of the permanent injunction by soliciting or recruiting the Brokers. Amerex asked that relators be held in contempt for violating the permanent injunction and be restrained from employing the Brokers. Amerex also noted that the Brokers were subject to employment agreements with Amerex that contain covenants not to compete. However, it has not sued the Brokers for breach of their employment contracts.

The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on January 29, 2010, and signed the contempt order on February 22, 2010. The trial court found relators in contempt of the agreed permanent injunction and final judgment, and ordered them “to purge themselves of their civil contempt— to wit to refrain from employing the [Brokers] in violation of the [Brokers’] employment agreements with Amerex during the pendency of the [Brokers’] covenants not to compete in their Amerex employment contracts.” The trial court further stated that relators’ “failure to purge themselves of their contempt will subject them to monetary penalties and a holding of criminal contempt.”

Standard op Review

Because no restraint is involved, a petition for writ of mandamus is relators’ only possible relief. In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex.1999) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam); Rosser v. Squier, 902 S.W.2d 962 (Tex.1995) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam). To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Long, 984 S.W.2d at 625.

Constructive contempt is the violation of a written order outside the trial court’s presence. Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex.1995) (orig.proceeding). Contempt is not to be presumed, but rather is presumed not to exist. Deramus v. Thornton, 160 Tex. 494, 333 S.W.2d 824, 830 (1960) (orig.proeeeding). While we cannot weigh the evidence supporting the trial court’s contempt finding in this mandamus proceeding, we can determine whether the contempt order is void because there is no evidence of contempt. In re Long, 984 S.W.2d at 626-27.

Analysis

The Brokers Are Not Subject to the Judgment

Relators contend that the 1998 judgment does not apply to the Brokers because they were not “current” or “former” Amerex employees at the time the judgment was entered on November 6, 1998. We agree. An agreed judgment should be construed in the same manner as a contract. Gulf Ins. Co. v. Burns Motors, Inc., 22 S.W.3d 417, 422 (Tex.2000). Ordinary principles of contract law require us to determine the true intent of the parties as expressed in the agreed judgment. Keys v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P., No. 14-07-00809-CV, 2009 WL 4022178, at *2 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 24, 2009, no pet.) (mem.op.) (citing Anzilotti v. Gene D. Liggin, Inc., 899 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ)). We examine the writing as a whole in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless. J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex.2003). We give terms their plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless the contract shows the parties used them in a technical or different sense. Heritage Res., Inc. v. NationsBank, 939 S.W.2d 118, 121 (Tex.1996). In construing a contract, the court may not rewrite the contract or add to its language. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 124 S.W.3d 154, 162 (Tex.2003).

Amerex argues that we should construe the word “current” in the 1998 judgment in a way so that its effect is not limited to 1998 employees but would extend to individuals employed at the present time. Amerex argues that the only significance of the November 6, 1998 date is that it is date the trial court signed the judgment; Amerex claims that the date otherwise has no bearing on the interpretation of the judgment. We disagree. The judgment cannot be interpreted in a temporal vacuum. The November 6, 1998 date provides the point at which the parties’ rights, duties, and remedies were defined.

Amerex further argues that the parties’ intent to bind “future” employees is evidenced by the following factual recitations in the 1998 judgment:

That the parties have agreed, and by their executions set forth below, do hereby agree, to respect the employment agreements of the other and not to aid or abet, directly or indirectly, current or former employees of the other in breaching or violating the employees’ obligations under such agreements.
* * *
That in exchange for the injunctive relief set forth below, each party has agreed, and by their executions set forth below do hereby agree, that they may amend and/or modify their present and/or future employment agreements at any time and in any manner without the prior notice or approval of any other party.

Contrary to Amerex’s assertion, however, these paragraphs address employment contracts of those employees who were current or former employees of Choice! or Amerex in 1998. They do not address employment contracts of “future” employees who had not yet been hired.

In fact, “future” employees are not referenced anywhere in the judgment. When a contract specifically mentions some, but not all, members of a certain class, as here, we must assume the parties intended to exclude other members that were not referenced. See CKB & Assocs., Inc. v. Moore McCormack Petroleum, Inc., 734 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tex.1987) (applying the contract principle of unius est exclusion alterius). The inclusion of “current” and “former” employees, but not “future” employees, supports an inference that the parties intended to exclude “future” employees from those employees subject to the November 6, 1998 agreed judgment. See id. Applying these well-established rules of contract construction, we conclude that the Brokers are not subject to the November 6, 1998 judgment.

A contempt order is void when it purports to punish the contemnor for conduct that is beyond the scope of the trial court’s prior order or decree. Deramus, 333 S.W.2d at 830. Because the Brokers are not subject to the November 6, 1998 agreed judgment, there is no evidence that relators violated it. In the absence of any evidence that relators violated the prior agreed judgment, trial court’s February 22, 2010 order finding relators in contempt is void. See In re Long, 984 S.W.2d at 626-27.

This Original Proceeding is Not Moot

Amerex argues that this original proceeding is moot. On August 17, 2010, Amerex filed a notice of waiver in the trial court that it has explicitly waived the right to complain about any failure by relators to comply with the contempt order between February 22, 2010 and May 24, 2010, when the covenants not to compete in the Brokers’ employment agreements expired. Amerex, however, has not waived its right to seek damages related to relators’ alleged violations of the agreed judgment.

The mootness doctrine limits courts to deciding cases in which an actual controversy exists between the parties. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Nueces County, 886 S.W.2d 766, 767 (Tex.1994). Generally an appeal is moot when the court’s action on the merits cannot affect the rights of the parties. VE Corp. v. Ernst & Young, 860 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex.1993) (per curiam).

Amerex seeks only to have rela-tors’ petition for writ of mandamus dismissed as moot. According to relators, however, Amerex has threatened to file a separate lawsuit against one or more of the relators asserting claims related to the hiring of the Brokers. Because Amerex has not waived its right to seek damages, it is still poised to use the contempt order in support of any subsequent suit for damages. Relators will suffer the adverse consequences of the void contempt order unless it is set aside. Therefore, this court’s decision on the pending petition will affect the parties’ rights, and Amerex’s “waiver” does not render relators’ petition moot.

Laches Does Not Bar Mandamus Relief

Amerex contends that relators’ petition is barred by laches because they waited some 60 days after the trial court signed the contempt order to file their petition for writ of mandamus. Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is influenced by equitable principles. In re Int’l Profit Assocs., Inc., 274 S.W.3d 672, 676 (Tex.2009) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam). A delay in the filing of a petition for writ of mandamus may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the delay. Id.

Laches, however, is not applicable when the order subject to the mandamus proceeding is void. In re Chester, 309 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, orig. proceeding). Since we hold that the order in question in this case is void, the doctrine of laches similarly does not apply here. Id.

Moreover, between the time the trial court signed the contempt order and rela-tors filed their petition in this Court, they filed a motion requesting that the trial court vacate the contempt order. See In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex.1999) (orig.proceeding) (per curiam) (“A party’s right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for some action and a refusal of that request.”). The trial court denied relators’ motion to vacate on March 22, 2010, and relators’ counsel did not learn of the trial court’s ruling until April 8, 2010. Accordingly, the record does not reflect that relators unjustifiably delayed filing their petition in this court.

Conclusion

We conclude that the trial court’s February 22, 2010 order finding relators in contempt is void. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its February 22, 2010 order. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion. We further deny Amerex’s motion to dismiss this original proceeding as moot.

      . Emphasis added.

      . Emphasis added.

      . Notably, these factual recitations precede, and are not subsequently repeated in, the portion of the court's decree that actually decides the parties’ respective rights as to solicitation and recruitment of "current” and "former” employees. See Crider v. Cox, 960 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1997, writ denied) (explaining that factual recitations do not actually determine the parties’ rights and interests). Therefore, these paragraphs should not be considered as part of the trial court's decision. See Ellis v. Mtge. & Trust, Inc., 751 S.W.2d 721, 724 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1988, no writ).

        . See In re Salgado, 53 S.W.3d 752, 757-58 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2001, orig. proceeding) (holding protective order against father was not moot, even though it would expire before appellate court could issue opinion, because it carried collateral consequence-father's sister had used period of custody to argue she had standing to file suit affecting parent-child relationship); In re M.E.G., 48 S.W.3d 204, 208 n. 5 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, no pet.) (holding appeal of enforcement order was not moot, even thought appellant was released from custody with no stipulations on appellant’s remaining free, because appellant may suffer collateral consequences from still valid order); Ex parte Young, 724 S.W.2d 423, 425 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 1987, orig. proceeding) (holding application for writ of habeas corpus was not moot, even though trial court released relator from jail, because he may still suffer collateral consequences from still valid order).

      . We have previously rejected Amerex's contention that the expiration of the Brokers’ covenants not to compete on May 24, 2010 rendered relators’ petition moot.

      . Amerex asserts that the 60-day delay in filing the petition is unreasonable because the covenants not to compete in the Brokers' employment contracts expired on May 24, 2010. However, as previously noted, we have already rejected Amerex's position that relators’ petition is moot based on the expiration of the covenants not to compete.

      . Because we have found that the Brokers are not subject to the agreed judgment and, therefore, there is no evidence that relators violated the judgment, it is not necessary to address the other issues raised in relators’ petition.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice LANG-MIERS.

license: Public Domain

text:
    In re James C.C. HUDSON, Relator.
    No. 05-10-01300-CV.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
    Oct. 22, 2010.
    Will Ford Hartnett, James J. Hartnett, The Hartnett Law Firm, Dallas, for Relator.
    Mary C. Burdette, Calloway, Norris, Burdette & Weber, Dallas, for Real Party in Interest.
    Before Justices O’NEILL, FITZGERALD, and LANG-MIERS.
   OPINION

Opinion by

Justice LANG-MIERS.

Relator contends the trial court erred in denying him a trial by jury. We conclude relator has an adequate remedy on appeal and deny his petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex.R.App. P. 52.8(a); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex.2004) (orig. proceeding).

The case below involves a will that was filed for probate by real party in interest. Relator filed a general denial and a jury demand. The trial court heard the application without a jury over relator’s objection, and rendered an order admitting the will to probate. Relator then filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to have the trial court’s order vacated and the matter set for a jury trial.

In order to obtain mandamus relief, relator must show both that the trial court has abused its discretion and that he has no adequate appellate remedy. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding). Because probate proceedings are an exception to the general rule that there is only one final judgment in a case, we must determine whether the trial court’s order was final and appealable. See De Ayala v. Mackie, 193 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Tex.2006). When an order in a probate case disposes of all of the claims and parties at a particular phase of the proceedings, it is an appealable order. Id. at 579; In re Guardianship of Miller, 299 S.W.3d 179, 184 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009, no pet.). In this case, the trial court’s order admits the will to probate, appoints real party in interest as independent executrix, and states that no other action shall be had in the probate court other than the return of an inventory, appraisement, and list of claims. We find this order has “sufficient attributes of finality to confer appellate jurisdiction,” and therefore relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. See id. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.


author: J. WOODFIN JONES, Chief Justice.

text:
    SHUMAKER ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. The CITY OF AUSTIN, Texas, Appellee.
    No. 03-09-00613-CV.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.
    Nov. 2, 2010.
    Scott W. Stover, Seale, Stover & Bisbey, Jasper, TX, for Appellant.
    Patricia L. Link, Assistant City Attorney, City of Austin Law Department, Austin, TX, for Appellee.
    Before Chief Justice JONES, Justices PATTERSON and HENSON.
   OPINION

J. WOODFIN JONES, Chief Justice.

Shumaker Enterprises, Inc. (“Shumaker”) filed a permit application with Travis County seeking to develop its real property located in the county. Subsequently, but before the County had acted on the application, the property became part of the extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”) of the City of Austin. The City then required Shumaker to obtain a City permit to develop the property. Shumaker filed suit in district court against the City, asserting that chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code required the City to consider only those requirements that were applicable at the time Shumaker had filed its permit application with the County. The district court rendered summary judgment in favor of the City. We conclude that local government code section 245.002 does not lock in a regulatory agency’s permitting requirements as to a project until the original filing concerning the project is made with that regulatory agency. Accordingly, we hold that Shumaker’s filing with the County did not impact the City’s imposition of requirements for the issuance of a City permit. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Shumaker is the owner of approximately 470 acres of land in Travis County on which it intends to conduct sand and gravel mining operations. On July 1, 2005, Shumaker submitted to the County an application for a permit to conduct mining operations on the property. At that time, the “Front Tract” of the property was located within the City’s ETJ, but the “Middle Tract” and “Back Tract” were not. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 42.021(a)(5) (West 2008) (defining extraterritorial jurisdiction of municipality with 100,000 or more inhabitants). On December 31, 2005, however, as a result of the City’s annexation of unrelated property, the City’s ETJ expanded to include the Middle Tract. The County had not yet acted on Shumaker’s permit application, and Shumaker had not yet submitted any development application, plan, or notice to the City. The County later issued a permit to Shumaker, allowing development of the Back Tract but precluding development of the Front and Middle Tracts without a City permit or, with respect to the Middle Tract, submission of proof that the City would not require a permit.

Following the County’s permit issuance, Shumaker submitted an application to the City for development of the Front Tract, and the City issued a permit allowing such development. Shumaker also requested from the City a determination that no City permit was required for development of the Middle Tract due to Shumaker’s application with the County having already been filed before that tract came within the City’s ETJ. The City rejected Shumaker’s position, requiring a City permit for development of the Middle Tract (as with the Front Tract).

Shumaker filed suit in district court against the City, seeking mandamus and declaratory relief with respect to the Middle Tract. See id. § 245.006(a) (West 2005). The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. The district court rendered summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that Shumaker was not entitled to develop the Middle Tract “solely under the land development laws in place when it filed its application with the County on July 1, 2005 — i.e., solely the County’s land development laws.” Shu-maker appeals.

DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s summary judgment de novo. Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 156 (Tex.2004). Under the “traditional” standard, a summary judgment should be granted only when the movant establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215-16 (Tex.2003). When, as here, both parties file motions for summary judgment and the court grants one and denies the other, we must decide all questions presented and render the judgment that the trial court should have rendered. City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News, 22 S.W.3d 351, 356 (Tex.2000).

Shumaker argues that its filing a permit application with the County at a time when the Middle Tract was not within the City’s jurisdiction barred the City from requiring Shumaker to obtain a City permit after the Middle Tract became a part of the City’s ETJ. Shumaker relies on chapter 245 of the local government code, which governs the issuance of local permits. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 245.001-.007 (West 2005). Section 245.002 provides as follows:

(a) Each regulatory agency shall consider the approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of an application for a permit solely on the basis of any orders, regulations, ordinances, rules, expiration dates, or other properly adopted requirements in effect at the time:
(1) the original application for the permit is filed for review for any purpose, including review for administrative completeness; or
(2) a plan for development of real property or plat application is filed with a regulatory agency.
(a-1) Rights to which a permit applicant is entitled under this chapter accrue on the filing of an original application or plan for development or plat application that gives the regulatory agency fair notice of the project and the nature of the permit sought. An application or plan is considered filed on the date the applicant delivers the application or plan to the regulatory agency or deposits the application or plan with the United States Postal Service by certified mail addressed to the regulatory agency. A certified mail receipt obtained by the applicant at the time of deposit is prima facie evidence of the date the application or plan was deposited with the United States Postal Service.

Id. § 245.002(a), (a-1).

Generally, the right to develop property is subject to intervening regulatory changes. Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 124 (Tex.1998). Section 245.002(a) creates a narrow exception to this rule by ensuring that if, after receiving a development application or plan, a regulatory agency changes its land-use regulations, the agency cannot enforce such regulatory change to the detriment of the applicant. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 245.002(a); Save Our Springs Alliance v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674, 681 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, no pet.).

Local government code section 245.002(a)(1) requires a regulatory agency to process a land development permit application solely under the land development laws and requirements in effect when the original application was filed. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 245.002(a)(1). Shumaker argues that section 245.002(a)(1) should be construed to mean that all jurisdictions’ land development laws are locked in for a project once an application is filed with any interested regulatory agency. Under this view, the City would be required to consider Shumaker’s permit application with the City solely on the basis of the requirements applicable at the time Shumaker filed its permit application with the County. It is true that the application filed with the County was the original application for Shumaker’s mining project on the Middle Tract. Section 245.002(a)(1), however, refers to the original application “for the permit” — not for the “project” or for the “property” — which in context refers to a permit sought from the regulatory agency that is charged with determining whether to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the pending application. Under the plain language of the statute, therefore, the City must consider the application for a City permit solely on the basis of the requirements in effect at the time the application to the City was filed. To gain section 245.002(a)(l)’s protection from a change in the regulatory agency’s existing “orders, regulations, ordinances, rules, expiration dates, or other properly adopted requirements,” an applicant must first file a permit application with that agency. See id. § 245.002(a).

The parties also dispute the effect of local government code section 245.002(a-1), which contemplates that the permit application provide “fair notice” to “the regulatory agency.” See id. § 245.002(a-1). However, section 245.002(a-1) does not alter section 245.002(a)’s description of what rights accrue and against which regulatory agency they accrue. Rather, section 245.002(a-1) clarifies when such rights accrue. They accrue as of the filing “that gives the regulatory agency fair notice of the project and the nature of the permit sought,” the time of such filing being dependent on whether the applicant uses certified mail. See id.; see also Sen. Comm, on Intergovernmental Relations, Bill Analysis, Tex. S.B. 848, 79th Leg., R.S. (2005) (“S.B. 848 specifically defines and determines what ‘filed’ means as it relates to city applications for land development permits.”). Thus, subsection (a-1) does not contemplate that an application filed with one agency will provide “fair notice” to another agency. That subsection merely addresses what constitutes fair notice to a regulatory agency when an applicant submits materials that the applicant intends to constitute a filing with that agency. See Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 245.002(a-1).

Nor does section 242.001(c) of the local government code affect our holding. Section 242.001(c) provides, in relevant part:

Any expansion or reduction in the municipality’s extraterritorial jurisdiction that affects property that is subject to a preliminary or final plat, a plat application, or an application for a related permit filed with the municipality or the county or that was previously approved under Section 212.009 or Chapter 232 does not affect any rights accrued under Chapter 245. The approval of the plat, any permit, a plat application, or an application for a related permit remains effective as provided by Chapter 245 regardless of the change in designation as extraterritorial jurisdiction of the municipality.

Id. § 242.001(c) (West 2005). Shumaker relies on section 242.001(c) to assert that the legislature has determined that an expansion of a municipality’s ETJ has no effect on rights locked in under chapter 245. By its terms, however, the quoted portion of section 242.001(c) does not entitle Shumaker to any rights as against the City, because that provision applies only to subdivision plats and related permits. See generally id. § 242.001. Since Shumaker’s intended development involves a mining operation, not a subdivision, section 242.001(c) does not apply here.

CONCLUSION

At the time Shumaker filed its original application with the City concerning its mining project, the Middle Tract was already within the City’s ETJ. Therefore, chapter 245 of the local government code does not prohibit the City from imposing on Shumaker’s Middle Tract the requirements then applicable to property located within the City’s ETJ. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

      . Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. §§ 245.001-.007 (West 2005).

      . The Travis County Code requires that the County not issue a development permit until all applicable approvals are acquired from the City. See Travis County Code § 64.058 (2008).

      . Shumaker also filed suit against the County, but its claims against the County were severed from this suit.

      . There is no dispute that both the County and the City are "regulatory agencies,” see Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann. § 245.001(4), that Shumaker has applied to both the County and the City for a "permit,” see id. § 245.001(1), and that subsection (1) of section 245.002(a) is the subsection applicable to Shumaker’s applications, see id. § 245.002(a).

      . If a series of permits are to be filed with a regulatory agency for a single project, the applicable requirements become frozen upon the filing of the application for the first permit in the series. See id. § 245.002(b).

      . Having concluded that Shumaker failed to lock in any rights under local government code section 245.002(a) as against the City prior to the expansion of the City’s ETJ, we need not address the City's additional arguments that Shumaker's project was not "in progress,” see id. § 245.003, or that the annexation ordinance that brought the Middle Tract into the City's ETJ is exempted from chapter 245, see id. § 245.004(7). In addition, we are not faced with the question of, and do not address (1) the impact of an application filed with a regulatory agency on the approval process of another regulatory agency in the same political subdivision, or (2) the impact of a permit being issued by a county for a project prior to the expansion of a municipality’s ETJ to include the subject property.