Jurisdictional-Discovery Ruling Impacts Family Law Pleas and Standing Fights

4 Families of Hobby, LLC, 4 Families of Houston, LLC, and Pappas Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Houston, Texas, 24-0796, January 09, 2026.

On appeal from Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

Synopsis

The Texas Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to jurisdictional discovery on a dispositive fact question: whether the airport concessions agreement required a municipal “expenditure” exceeding Chapter 252’s statutory threshold (then $50,000). Because that fact determines whether Chapter 252’s bid-law immunity waiver can apply, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal and remanded for jurisdictional discovery.

Relevance to Family Law

This is not a family-law case, but it is a family-law plea practice case. Texas family litigators routinely litigate standing, capacity, and statutory “gatekeeping” prerequisites (SAPCR standing under Chapter 102, UIFSA jurisdiction, UCCJEA home-state facts, TCPA applicability, exhaustion/administrative predicates, etc.), and those disputes often turn on contested, record-dependent jurisdictional facts. 4 Families of Hobby is a strong reminder that when jurisdiction hinges on a factual predicate, the trial court should permit targeted jurisdictional discovery rather than forcing the nonmovant to lose (or “win by luck”) based on an underdeveloped record—especially where the key facts are largely in the other side’s possession.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

For decades, Pappas operated food-and-beverage concessions at Houston’s Hobby Airport under a contract with the City. After a multi-year RFP process, the City awarded a new ten-year concessions contract to Areas HOU JV, LLC and executed the Food and Beverage Concession Agreement (the “Areas Agreement”).

Pappas sued, alleging (among other theories) that the City violated Local Government Code Chapter 252 by entering a contract “that requires an expenditure of more than $50,000” without complying with the prescribed competitive procedures. Chapter 252 contains an enforcement mechanism and a waiver concept: a noncompliant contract is void and may be enjoined by a taxpaying resident. The City responded with a plea to the jurisdiction asserting Chapter 252 did not apply because the agreement was a “revenue” contract, not an “expenditure” contract, relying in part on contractual language stating there would be “No City Expenditure.”

The trial court denied the plea, but the court of appeals reversed and dismissed the Chapter 252 claims, concluding the record did not demonstrate the agreement required a qualifying municipal expenditure. The Supreme Court reversed because the key question—whether the contract in practice requires expenditures beyond the threshold—was a jurisdictional fact dispute for which jurisdictional discovery was warranted.

Issues Decided

The Court decided, in substance, the following issues:

1. Whether the applicability of Chapter 252’s immunity waiver turned on a disputed jurisdictional fact question about municipal “expenditures” under the concessions agreement and the statutory threshold.
2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to jurisdictional discovery targeted to that fact question before dismissal of the Chapter 252 claims.

Rules Applied

Chapter 252 (as applicable then) required competitive procurement procedures “[b]efore a municipality may enter into a contract that requires an expenditure of more than $50,000 from one or more municipal funds.” TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 252.021(a) (prior version). The Legislature increased the threshold to $100,000 in 2025.

The Court emphasized the standard plea-to-the-jurisdiction framework: when a plea challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, courts consider evidence and must do so when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional question. The opinion’s cited line of authority includes Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004), and Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000). The Court also underscored that when a waiver of immunity (or analogous jurisdictional gateway) is “tethered to specific factual prerequisites,” determining jurisdiction requires determining whether those facts exist—and “the path to that destination often passes through jurisdictional discovery.” (quoting Tex. So. Univ. v. Young, 682 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. 2023) (Young, J., concurring)).

Application

The litigation posture mattered. The City’s plea framed the Chapter 252 waiver as inapplicable because the agreement was allegedly outside the statute’s scope—i.e., not a contract “that requires an expenditure” above the threshold. The court of appeals effectively treated the existing record as the full and final record on that jurisdictional fact question, leaning heavily on (1) the “No City Expenditure” clause and (2) the perceived absence of contract terms requiring City spending above $50,000.

The Supreme Court rejected that procedural end-run. The Court treated the “expenditure over the threshold” issue as precisely the kind of jurisdictional fact dispute that should not be decided on an artificially thin record—particularly where the plaintiff sought targeted discovery aimed at the pleaded jurisdictional deficiency and where the information bearing on actual expenditures and operational obligations may be held by the governmental defendant or embedded in implementation practices rather than the contract’s most convenient disclaimer clause.

In other words: if the jurisdictional gateway turns on a factual predicate, the court should allow narrowly tailored jurisdictional discovery to test that predicate. Dismissal without permitting that discovery was premature.

Holding

The Court held jurisdictional discovery is warranted on whether the concessions agreement requires a municipal expenditure exceeding Chapter 252’s statutory threshold. Because that fact question is tied to the statute’s applicability (and thus the existence of a waiver pathway for the Chapter 252 claims), the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ dismissal of those claims and remanded to the trial court to conduct jurisdictional discovery and then reassess the jurisdictional dispute on a developed record.

Practical Application

Family-law litigators should read 4 Families of Hobby as a tactical briefing blueprint for standing and plea battles where the decisive question is fact-bound and documentary (or in the opposing party’s control).

First, this opinion helps when you are resisting a plea to the jurisdiction (or a standing/capacity challenge styled as jurisdictional) and you cannot fully prove the predicate without discovery. Common examples include: (1) SAPCR standing based on “exclusive care, control, and possession” for six months (often proven by school/medical records, third-party testimony, and communications); (2) UCCJEA “home state” timelines, extended absences, and “temporary absence” disputes; (3) UIFSA personal jurisdiction facts, residency, and service issues; (4) TRCP 120a special appearance disputes when the jurisdictional facts are intertwined with merits-adjacent evidence; and (5) enforcement actions where the relator’s standing turns on assignment, subrogation, or benefit eligibility records.

Second, 4 Families of Hobby supports asking the trial court to (a) set an expedited discovery schedule aimed at the jurisdictional facts, (b) limit discovery to what is proportional and necessary, and (c) defer a dismissal ruling until after that targeted record is built. The Court’s approach is especially useful when the other side tries to win early using labels (“revenue contract,” “no expenditure,” “no standing,” “not a parent”) rather than the operational facts that the governing statute or doctrine actually requires.

Third, for the movant: 4 Famiies of Hobby is a caution. If your plea depends on factual predicates and you oppose jurisdictional discovery reflexively, you may be buying a remand—and losing the clean, early exit you wanted. A better strategy is often to propose a short, disciplined jurisdictional-discovery plan and drive the case toward an evidentiary hearing with a record robust enough to survive appellate scrutiny.

Checklists

Jurisdictional-Discovery Triage (Standing/Plea Cases)

• Identify the specific jurisdictional predicate (e.g., Chapter 102 standing facts; UCCJEA home-state timeline; service/residency facts; statutory prerequisites).
• Map each predicate element to proof categories (documents, third-party records, testimony).
• Determine what is uniquely in the opponent’s possession (emails, logs, internal records, third-party contracts, platform data).
• Draft a targeted discovery plan (requests + deposition topics) explicitly tied to the predicate.

Building a Record That Survives Interlocutory Review

• File a written motion for jurisdictional discovery and obtain a ruling (or at least a clear record of request and refusal).
• Ask the court to sequence: jurisdictional discovery → evidentiary hearing → ruling.
• Offer proportional limits (time period, custodians, search terms, number of depos).
• Proffer why existing evidence is insufficient without discovery and how discovery will likely produce competent proof.

Attacking “Disclaimer Clauses” and Formal Labels

• Compare contractual/pleading labels to operational reality (who actually pays, reimburses, maintains, or bears costs).
• Seek documents showing implementation (invoices, budgets, reimbursements, work orders, internal approvals).
• Pin down whether the duty is mandatory (“shall”) and whether it predictably triggers spending beyond the threshold/timeline at issue.
• Prepare to argue that a disclaimer does not defeat jurisdiction if the statute turns on what the agreement requires in fact.

Avoiding the Non-Prevailing Party’s Problem (Premature Merits-by-Record)

• Do not rely on generalized “big number” evidence untethered to the jurisdictional predicate (e.g., aggregated costs that don’t connect to the disputed obligation).
• Tailor proof to the exact disputed fact (location-specific, time-specific, party-specific).
• Preserve error: request discovery, obtain a ruling, and make a record explaining why denial prevents a fair jurisdictional determination.

Citation

4 Families of Hobby, LLC, 4 Families of Houston, LLC, and Pappas Restaurants, Inc. v. City of Houston, Texas, No. 24-0796, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Tex. Jan. 9, 2026) (per curiam).

Full Opinion

http://docs.texasappellate.com/scotx/op/24-0796/2026-01-09.pc.pdf