Case: Hotze v. Abbott
4:20-cv-02104 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Filed Date: June 15, 2020
Closed Date: July 29, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On June 15, 2020, 1,316 Texas residents and companies ("the plaintiffs") filed this lawsuit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued the State of Texas, the Governor, the Health and Human Services Commission, the Department of State Health Services, the Executive Director of the Department of Health Services, and the Commissioner of the Department of State Health Services ("the defendants"). Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs challenged the Governor's lock down orders and contact tracing methods during the COVID-19 pandemic and sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, alleging violations of the plaintiffs’ rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that large-scale contract tracing as undertaken by the defendants imposed a chilling effect on the First Amendment associative rights of all Texans. Contact tracing, the plaintiffs argued, also violated the Fourth Amendment by subjecting the plaintiffs to unreasonable surveillance without consent or a warrant. Considering the lock down orders, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by arbitrarily selecting certain businesses to remain fully open while ordering other similarly situated businesses to remain closed. Finally, the plaintiffs claimed that lock down orders and contact tracing both infringed their Fourteenth Amendment right by imposing criminal penalties without due process.
One month later, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint adding named plaintiffs, defendants, and additional alleged violations of their rights under the United States Constitution as well as state law. On July 13, 2020, 1,319 plaintiffs, in addition to the allegations in the original complaint, alleged that the Mayor of Houston, Texas, and Houston First Corporation violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association by cancelling the Texas Republican Convention (TRC). Additionally, the plaintiffs alleged that this cancellation violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the Mayor permitted protests against police brutality.
The same day, the plaintiffs requested that the court issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining the Houston Mayer and the Houston First Corporation from cancelling the TRC the following month. After a hearing held on July 15, 2020, Judge Lynn N. Hughes orally denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order.
On July 17, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and a motion for reconsideration. The second amended complaint included a total of 1,321 plaintiffs, including the Republican Party of Texas (RPT). The plaintiffs requested that the court reconsider its denial of the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because the RPT became a party to this case. The motion to reconsider argued that the RPT attempted to host a virtual convention, but that attempt was a "disaster because a virtual platform cannot support the work the Republican Party of Texas does at its convention."
Judge Hughes held a hearing on the motion that same day and again issued an oral order, this time granting the plaintiffs' motion. In addition, Judge Hughes ordered Houston First to extend the contract for facility and services to the RPT for additional days. In response, the defendants filed an emergency motion to stay and a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on July 17, 2020 (Case No. 20-20379). The defendants claimed that the district court improperly ordered specific performance of a contract not before that court and improperly amended the contract between Houston First and the RPT. The following day, the Fifth Circuit granted a temporary stay of the district court's temporary restraining order pending resolution of the defendants' petition for writ of mandamus.
Judge Hughes later issued a written opinion and order on the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on July 19, 2020. 473 F. Supp. 3d 736.
Following that order, the defendants filed a joint emergency motion in the district court on July 20, 2020, to dissolve the preliminary injunction and an alternative motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending resolution by the Fifth Circuit. The defendants alleged that the district court provided barely four hours' notice prior to the July 17, 2020, hearing on the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider and that the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction violated federal civil procedure.
On July 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case in district court, arguing that the district court should exercise its discretion to dismiss because parallel litigation was pending in state court and based on the principles of comity, federalism, and abstention. Additionally, the defendants alleged that the district court lacked authority to grant declaratory relief in this case.
Judge Hughes issued an order of dismissal on agreement of both parties and dissolved the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The district court case closed on July 22, 2020. Accordingly, the defendants withdrew their petition for writ of mandamus as moot in the Fifth Circuit. The Court of Appeals case closed on July 29, 2020.
Summary Authors
Richa Bijlani (4/20/2022)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17251914/parties/hotze-v-abbott/
Dickey, James D (Texas)
Amis, Brian Anthony (Texas)
Ardolino, Emily Laura (Texas)
Dickerson, Todd (Texas)
Grosdidier, Pierre Charles (Texas)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17251914/hotze-v-abbott/
Last updated April 11, 2026, 4:59 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Healthy Elections COVID litigation tracker
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 15, 2020
Closing Date: July 29, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
1,321 individual residents of Texas, Texas companies, and the Texas Republican Party.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Closely-held (for profit) corporation
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
City
Houston First Corporation
Mayor
State
Commissioner
Department of State Health Services
Executive Director
Governor
Health and Human Services Commission
State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Southern District of Texas 4:20-cv-02104
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Case Summary of Hotze v. Abbott, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/18046/ (last updated 4/20/2022).