What does "no basis in law or fact" mean under Texas Rule 91a?
This question has been addressed in 2 Texas court opinions:
Shelton v. Flores
COA14 — February 3, 2026
In Shelton v. Flores, a government employee (Shelton) attempted to dismiss claims against himself by filing a Rule 91a motion under the Texas Tort Claims Act's (TTCA) election-of-remedies provision after both he and his employer, the City of Houston, were sued. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.106(e), which states that an employee shall be dismissed 'on the motion of the governmental unit.' The court held that because the City did not join or file the motion to dismiss Shelton, the statutory condition precedent was not met. The court concluded that individual employees lack standing to 'self-dismiss' under this provision without the employer’s active participation.
Litigation Takeaway
“Government employees, such as CPS caseworkers or law enforcement officers, cannot unilaterally exit a lawsuit under the TTCA election-of-remedies provision unless the government agency they work for formally moves for their dismissal. This provides family law litigants with strategic leverage to keep individual defendants in a case for discovery purposes, especially when an agency is reluctant to admit the employee was acting within the scope of their employment.”
In re 7-Eleven, Inc.
COA13 — February 19, 2026
In this case, a trial court failed to rule on a Rule 91a motion to dismiss "baseless claims" for several months following a hearing. The Relators sought mandamus relief to compel a ruling. The Court of Appeals analyzed Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, noting that while its 45-day deadline for rulings is directory rather than jurisdictional, the rule's core purpose is the "early and speedy dismissal" of meritless litigation. The court found that because the motion was properly heard and the delay was objectively unreasonable, the trial court's inaction constituted an abuse of discretion. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to issue a ruling on the motion.
Litigation Takeaway
“Trial courts cannot use a 'pocket veto' to avoid ruling on Rule 91a motions to dismiss. If a judge refuses to rule on a motion to dismiss baseless claims within a reasonable time after a hearing, mandamus is an available tool to force a decision and prune frivolous 'tort-crossover' claims from family law litigation.”