“Under Texas law, when a government contractor is sued for complying with
directions it received from an entity with governmental immunity, the contractor is
likewise entitled to immunity.
That is the case here. Under both the Government Code and its contracts
with GTECH, the TLC alone has authority over all aspects of Texas Lottery
games. The TLC determined the final specifications for its “Fun 5’s” tickets, and
Nettles admits that all of her complaints about the “Fun 5’s” tickets arise from
decisions made by the TLC, not GTECH. Nettles further admits that GTECH
followed the TLC’s directions to the letter. Accordingly, GTECH has immunity.
Nettles cannot avoid that conclusion by arguing that GTECH could be held
liable without causing the government to make unforeseen expenditures. That
argument was not preserved for this Court’s review, and it is based on a misreading
of the authority she cites.
Nor can Nettles defeat GTECH’s immunity by arguing that GTECH was
required to exercise independent discretion because it owed a duty of “reasonable
care” when deciding whether to implement or reject the TLC’s changes to the
working papers. GTECH is contractually obligated to implement the TLC’s
decisions, and nothing in its contracts with the TLC requires—or even allows—
GTECH to second-guess those decisions. Moreover, Nettles’s insistence that
GTECH owed a duty of “reasonable care” cannot be reconciled with her decision
to abandon her claims of negligence and replace them with claims of fraud.
The trial court correctly granted GTECH’s plea to the jurisdiction. This
Court should affirm.”
A copy of GTECH’s detailed arguments and supporting case law can be viewed in GTECH’s Brief of Appellee.
The post GTECH Files Appellee’s Brief in Dallas Court of Appeals first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>
Judge Jordan earlier ruled that the Texas Lottery Commission cannot be sued for fraud under the doctrine of “sovereign immunity”. A copy of the legal briefs on that issue and the court’s Order granting the TLC’s Plea to the Jurisdiction can be read >>here<<.
In his most recent Order Granting GTECH’s 1st Plea to the Jurisdiction, Judge Jordan dismissed Ms. Nettles’ fraud claims against GTECH based on the legal doctrine of “derivative immunity”. A copy of the legal briefs on that issue can be read >>here<<.
Richard LaGarde, one of the attorneys for Ms. Nettles, stated “We are disappointed in the court’s ruling and respectfully disagree with it. We plan to appeal and we hope to convince the court of appeals that lottery players should not be left without any legal remedy whatsoever if the lottery and its private operator decide to sell misleading and deceptive tickets to Texas citizens.”
The court’s ruling on Ms. Nettles’ case is not binding on the Austin trial court where approximately 1,000 lottery players have filed a similar Fun 5’s lawsuit against GTECH.
The post Court Rules that GTECH Cannot be Sued for Fraud first appeared on SEONewsWire.net.]]>