Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5) and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b, with exhibits¶
Bass v. D'Agostino and McSween, No. DC-2025-CV-1817 / No. 15-26-00132-CV · 2026-04-03 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Filed 4/3/2026 2:56 PM
Sara L. Smith
Lubbock County - 237th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
MS
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS,
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
v.
§ OF LUBBOCK
COUNTY, TEXAS
§
DARIND'AGOSTINO,D.O.,
§
M.P.H.,
237th M.B.A.,
JUDICIAL
in his
DISTRICT
official
§
capacityasProvostandExecutive
§
§
VicePresidentofAcademicsofTexas
§
TechUniversityHealthSciences
§
Center;and
§
AMANDAMcSWEN,inheroficial
§
capacityasManagingDirectorof
§
EnrollmentServicesandUniversity
§
RegistrarofTexasTechUniversity
§
HealthSciencesCenter,
§
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
PLAINTIFF'S SWORN MOTION UNDER RULE 306a(5) AND MOTION FOR
NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 329b
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, KEVIN N. BASS, Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause,
proceeding pro se, and files this Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5) of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b, and would respectfully show the Court
as follows:
I. SUMMARY
On March 26, 2026, this Court signed an Order granting Defendants' Plea to the
Jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not receive notice of this Order, the preceding Notice of Submission,
Defendants' Reply brief, or the Final Judgment until April 2, 2026 -- seven days after the Order
was signed. Plaintiff received no notice because the eFileTexas electronic service system
contained an incorrect email address for Plaintiff, causing all electronic service attempts after
1
218
218
March 3, 2026 to be sent to a nonexistent email address. This error is documented in
Defendants' own Automated Certificates of eService, which show service directed to
"kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com" rather than Plaintiff's actual email address,
"kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com."
As a result, Plaintiff was denied notice of and an opportunity to respond to (1) the
Notice of Submission requesting the Court rule without oral hearing, (2) Defendants' 10-page
Reply brief raising new arguments, and (3) the proposed order submitted by Defendants for the
Court's signature. Plaintiff was denied due process.
II. SWORN MOTION UNDER RULE 306a(5)
1. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(4), when a party adversely affected by a
judgment has neither received the notice required by Rule 306a(3) nor acquired actual
knowledge of the signing within twenty days after the judgment is signed, all appellate
deadlines begin on the date the party first received notice or acquired actual knowledge of the
signing.
2. The Order on Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction was signed on March 26, 2026.
3. Plaintiff did not receive the notice of judgment required by Rule 306a(3) within
twenty days of March 26, 2026.
4. Plaintiff first acquired actual knowledge of the signing of the Order on April 2, 2026,
when Plaintiff discovered the judgment through a review of publicly available docket data on
the re:SearchTX court records system.
5. April 2, 2026 is fewer than ninety days after March 26, 2026. As of the date of this
filing, Plaintiff still has not received the notice required by Rule 306a(3).
6. Accordingly, under Rule 306a(4), all periods referenced in Rule 306a(1) -- including
the deadline for filing a Motion for New Trial under Rule 329b -- begin to run from April 2,
2026, the date Plaintiff first acquired actual knowledge of the judgment.
7. This Motion for New Trial is timely under two independent bases:
2
219
219
a. Standard deadline under Rule 329b(a): The Order was signed March 26, 2026. Under
Rule 329b(a), a motion for new trial must be filed "prior to or within thirty days after the
judgment or other order complained of is signed." Thirty days from March 26 is April 25,
2026. This motion is filed before that date and is therefore timely under the standard deadline
without regard to Rule 306a.
b. Extended deadline under Rule 306a(4): Plaintiff has not, as of the date of this filing,
received the notice required by Rule 306a(3). The Clerk's Notice of Judgment dated April 2,
2026 (Exhibit E) was addressed only to Defendants and does not list Plaintiff's address. The
eFileTexas system's record for Plaintiff contains an incorrect email address
("kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com"), and every electronic notification to Plaintiff after March 3,
2026 was directed to the incorrect address and either failed with an ERROR status or was
transmitted to a nonexistent email address. Under Rule 306a(4), all periods in Rule 306a(1)
begin on the date the party received actual notice or acquired actual knowledge of the signing.
Plaintiff acquired actual knowledge on April 2, 2026. To the extent any question exists
regarding the standard deadline, Rule 306a(4) independently establishes that this motion is
timely.
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Plaintiff Was Actively Litigating This Case
8. On March 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a 78-page Response to Defendants' Plea to the
Jurisdiction and a Fourth Amended Verified Original Petition (17 pages). Both filings were
accepted by the eFileTexas system.
9. On the same date, March 3, 2026, the eFileTexas system generated "Electronic
Service Undeliverable" notifications in connection with Plaintiff's filings, indicating that the
electronic service system was experiencing failures. See Exhibit A (email records).
10. At no point did Plaintiff abandon or cease actively litigating this case. Plaintiff's
last filing was ten days before the first document Plaintiff never received.
3
220
220
B. Defendants Filed Dispositive Documents Plaintiff Never Received
11. On March 13, 2026, Defendants filed a Notice of Submission requesting that the Court consider the Plea to the Jurisdiction without oral hearing. See Exhibit B.
12. On the same date, Defendants filed an Amended Notice of Submis ion and a Proposed Order granting Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction, pre-drafted for the Court's signature. Se Exhibit C.
13.OnMarch18,2026,Defendantsfileda10-pageReplyinSup ortoftheirPleatotheJurisdiction,raisingnewargumentsregardingripeness,futilityofamendment,andacademicdeferencethatPlaintiffhadnoop ortunitytoad res .Se ExhibitD.
14. On March 19, 2026, the case appeared on the Motions Docket.
15.OnMarch26,2026,theCourtsignedtheProposedOrdersubmitedbyDefendantsonMarch13,2026.Thefilenameofthesignedorderis"20260313_ProposedOrder.pdf,"confirmingitisthesamedocumentDefendantssubmittedthirte ndaysearlier.
16. On April 2, 2026, the Clerk entered Final Judgment and mailed a Notice of Judgment. See Exhibit E.
17. Plaintiff received none of the filings described in paragraphs 11 through 16.
C. The eFileTexas System Had Plaintiff's Email Address Wrong
18. Defendants' Automated Certificates of eService reveal the cause of the service failure. Each certificate shows that electronic service on Plaintif was directed to:
kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com
19. Plaintiff's actual email address is:
kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
20.Thesystememailismis ingtheleter"a"attheendof"philadelphia."Thead res "kbas philadelphi@gmail.com"doesnotexistandhasneverexisted.Everyelectronicserviceatempttothisad res failed.
4
221
221
"kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com." See Exhibit G (eFileTexas profile screenshot). Plaintiff
21. The failure was not silent. The Automated Certificate of eService attached to the
signed Order (Exhibit C) explicitly records the service status for Plaintiff as "ERROR." See
Exhibit C at Automated Certificate of eService ("Associated Case Party: Kevin Bass ... Status:
ERROR"). The eFileTexas system affirmatively recorded that service on Plaintiff failed.
22. This error appears in the Automated Certificate of eService attached to every filing
after March 3, 2026. The certificates for the Notice of Submission (March 13) and the
Proposed Order (March 13) each record the service status for Plaintiff as "ERROR." The
certificate for the Reply (March 18) records the status as "SENT" · but to the same
nonexistent address, "kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com." A "SENT" status in the eFileTexas
system indicates only that the system transmitted the notification; it does not confirm delivery
or receipt. Plaintiff did not receive the Reply, as confirmed by the absence of any eFileTexas
notification in Plaintiff's Gmail inbox after March 3, 2026 (Exhibit A-3).
See Exhibits B, C, D (Automated Certificates of eService, each showing service
directed to "kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com").
23. By contrast, the body of Defendants' own Certificate of Service -- drafted by
Counsel Scott D. Smith -- correctly identifies Plaintiff's email as
"kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com." The attorney knew the correct email. The system had the
wrong one.
D. The Email Error Originated in the Court's Case Management System, Not Plaintiff's
Registration
24. Plaintiff's eFileTexas user profile correctly lists his email as
registered with the correct email address. The truncated address
"kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com" appearing in the Automated Certificates of eService originated
in the Lubbock County case management system's records for this case · not from any error
by Plaintiff. The eFileTexas system and the county CMS maintain separate records, and the
5
222
222
county system contained an incorrect email for Plaintiff.
E. Defendants Received Notification That Service Was Failing and Were Instructed to
Serve by Alternative Means
25. On March 3, 2026, the eFileTexas system sent "Electronic Service Undeliverable"
notifications to all service contacts in this case, including Defendants' counsel Scott D. Smith
(scott.smith@oag.texas.gov), Karla Gutierrez (karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov), and Tristan
Garza (tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov). See Exhibit A.
26. The Service Undeliverable notification explicitly listed the misspelled email
address: "Kevin Bass (kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com)." It further stated: "Please serve the
document using a different method." Defendants' counsel was thus on actual notice, as of
March 3, 2026, that electronic service on Plaintiff was failing and that alternative service was
required.
F. Defendants Had Actual Knowledge of Plaintiff's Correct Email and Used It During the
Same Period
27. On March 12, 2026, Defendants' counsel Scott D. Smith sent an email directly to
Plaintiff at kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com regarding this very case, styled "Bass v.
Rice-Spearman, et al. -- FERPA Records Request." See Exhibit F.
28. On March 13, 2026 -- the same day Defendants filed the Notice of Submission in
the state case -- Smith again emailed Plaintiff directly at the correct address regarding
Plaintiff's TTUHSC records. See Exhibit F.
29. On March 22 and March 30, 2026, Smith continued to email Plaintiff at the correct
address regarding the parallel federal case, Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV. See
Exhibit F.
30. Defendants' counsel was therefore in active, ongoing email communication with
Plaintiff at the correct email address throughout the entire period (March 13 through April 2)
during which the eFileTexas system was failing to deliver state-case filings to Plaintiff. At no
6
223
223
point did counsel inform Plaintiff of the Notice of Submission, the Reply brief, the Proposed
Order, or the signed Order -- despite the system's explicit instruction to "serve the document
using a different method" and despite counsel's demonstrated ability to reach Plaintiff directly.
G. The Clerk's Notice of Judgment Was Not Sent to Plaintiff
31. The Notice of Judgment dated April 2, 2026 lists mailing addresses for all eight
Defendants. See Exhibit E. The Notice does not list an address for Plaintiff. There is no
indication that Plaintiff was mailed or otherwise provided a copy of the Notice of Judgment.
IV. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 329b
32. Under Rule 329b(a), a motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days after the
judgment is signed. As established in Section II, Plaintiff's appellate timetable runs from April
2, 2026, the date Plaintiff first acquired actual knowledge of the judgment. This motion is
timely.
A. Plaintiff Was Denied Due Process
33. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a party
receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court enters judgment affecting the
party's rights. Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., 485 U.S. 80, 84-86 (1988).
34. Under Peralta, when a party establishes that it had no notice of proceedings
resulting in judgment, the judgment must be set aside without requiring a showing of
meritorious defense. Id. at 86-87. Texas courts have consistently applied this principle. See
Gonzales v. Surplus Ins. Servs., 863 S.W.2d 96, 99-100 (Tex. App.·Beaumont 1993, writ
denied) (reversing judgment entered without adequate notice under Peralta due process
standard); McDaniel v. Hale, 893 S.W.2d 652 (Tex. App.·Amarillo 1994, no writ) (Seventh
Court of Appeals recognizing due process requires actual notice before entry of judgment).
The Seventh Court of Appeals · the appellate court with jurisdiction over this Court · has
expressly held that due process requires meaningful notice and opportunity to be heard before
a judgment affecting a party's rights may be entered.
7
224
224
35. Plaintiff had no notice of: a. The March 13 Notice of Submission; b. The March 13
Proposed Order; c. The March 18 Reply raising new arguments; d. The March 19 hearing; e.
The March 26 Order; or f. The April 2 Final Judgment.
36. Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to: a. Object to submission without oral
hearing; b. Request oral argument on the Plea to the Jurisdiction; c. File a sur-reply responding
to Defendants' new arguments regarding ripeness, futility of amendment, and academic
deference; d. Appear at the March 19 hearing; and e. Object to the Proposed Order.
37. The denial of notice was not caused by Plaintiff's negligence or conscious
indifference. It was caused by an incorrect email address in the eFileTexas system, as
documented in Defendants' own filings.
B. Defendants Bore a Duty to Ensure Service Under Rule 21a
38. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 21a governs methods of service. When electronic
service fails, the serving party has a duty to effectuate service by alternative means.
39. The eFileTexas system generates notifications when electronic service is
undeliverable. If Defendants or their counsel received such notifications -- as Plaintiff did
when his own March 3 filings generated "Service Undeliverable" alerts -- Defendants had an
affirmative duty to serve Plaintiff through an alternative method.
40. Defendants' counsel had Plaintiff's correct email address and had used it as recently
as January 26, 2026. Counsel could have served Plaintiff directly. Counsel chose not to.
41. Instead, Defendants submitted the case for ruling on the papers, filed a Reply brief
raising new arguments, and attached a pre-written order for the Court's signature -- all while
the eFileTexas system was directing service to a nonexistent email address and recording
failed or undeliverable service on Plaintiff. Defendants knew or should have known that
Plaintiff was not receiving electronic service, yet took no alternative action to ensure notice.
42. Notably, the Proposed Order submitted by Defendants on March 13 bears the
filename "20260313_Proposed Order.pdf." Defendants drafted the order granting their own
8
225
225
motion before the submission date, before filing their Reply brief, and before any opportunity
for Plaintiff to respond to the Notice of Submission -- which Plaintiff never received. The
Court signed this pre-drafted order on March 26, 2026.
C. The Judgment Should Be Set Aside
43. The judgment entered March 26, 2026, was procured without notice to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff was actively litigating this case, having filed a 78-page Response and a Fourth
Amended Petition just ten days before Defendants submitted the case for ruling without his
knowledge.
44. Plaintiff has a meritorious defense to the Plea to the Jurisdiction, as set forth in his
78-page Response filed March 3, 2026, which is part of the record. Although Peralta does not
require a showing of meritorious defense where notice was absent, the Court's own record
reflects that Plaintiff's Response raised substantial legal arguments that warranted
consideration.
45. Granting a new trial will not cause undue delay or injury to Defendants. The case
was pending for less than five months before the Order was signed. The underlying dispute
concerns access to education records -- a matter of ongoing concern that is not mooted by
delay.
V. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass respectfully
requests that this Court:
1. Find, pursuant to Rule 306a(4) and 306a(5), that Plaintiff first acquired actual
knowledge of the signing of the March 26, 2026 Order on April 2, 2026, and that all appellate
deadlines run from that date;
2. Grant Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial and set aside the Order on Defendants' Plea to
the Jurisdiction signed March 26, 2026, and the Final Judgment entered April 2, 2026;
9
226
226
3. Set this matter for oral hearing on Defendants' Plea to the Jurisdiction, with proper
notice to all parties;
4. Grant all other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
KEVIN N. BASS
Pro Se Plaintiff
Telephone: (512) 333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
UNSWORN DECLARATION UNDER TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES
CODE SECTION 132.001
My name is Kevin N. Bass. My date of birth is December 7, 1984. My address is
I am the Plaintiff in Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817. I have read the foregoing Sworn
Motion Under Rule 306a(5) and Motion for New Trial. The factual statements contained
therein are within my personal knowledge and are true and correct.
I first acquired actual knowledge that the Court had signed the Order on Defendants'
Plea to the Jurisdiction on April 2, 2026, when I discovered the docket entry through a review
of publicly available court records data. Prior to April 2, 2026, I had neither received notice of
the Order nor acquired actual knowledge of its signing. I had not received the Notice of
Submission filed March 13, 2026, the Reply filed March 18, 2026, or the Proposed Order filed
March 13, 2026.
The last notification I received from the eFileTexas system regarding this case was on
March 3, 2026, confirming acceptance of my own filings. I received no notifications from the
eFileTexas system after that date.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
10
227
227
Executed in Lubbock County, State of Texas, on the 3rd day of April, 2026.
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
KEVIN N. BASS
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Sworn Motion Under Rule
306a(5) and Motion for New Trial was served on the following counsel of record via email and
via the eFileTexas electronic filing system on this 3rd day of April, 2026:
Scott D. Smith
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Email: scott.smith@oag.texas.gov
Karla Gutierrez
Office of the Attorney General of Texas
Email: karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov
/s/ Kevin N. Bass
KEVIN N. BASS
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A: Email records showing (1) last eFileTexas notification received March 3,
2026; (2) "Electronic Service Undeliverable" notifications dated March 3, 2026; (3) absence of
any notifications after March 3, 2026.
Exhibit B: Notice of Submission filed March 13, 2026, with Automated Certificate of
eService showing service to "kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com."
Exhibit C: Proposed Order filed March 13, 2026 (signed by the Court March 26, 2026),
with Automated Certificate of eService showing service to "kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com."
Exhibit D: Reply in Support of Defendants' PTJ filed March 18, 2026, with Automated
Certificate of eService showing service to "kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com."
Exhibit E: Notice of Judgment dated April 2, 2026, listing addresses for Defendants
only and not listing any address for Plaintiff.
11
228
228
Exhibit F: Email from Scott D. Smith to kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com dated January
26, 2026, demonstrating counsel's knowledge of Plaintiff's correct email address.
Exhibit G: Screenshot of Plaintiff's eFileTexas user profile showing registered email as
"kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com" (correct), demonstrating that the truncated address in the
Automated Certificates of eService originated in the court's case management system, not
Plaintiff's registration.
12
229
229
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT A
Electronic Service Undeliverable Notification
eFileTexas notification dated March 3, 2026, sent to all service
contacts including Defendants' counsel, showing Plaintiff's email
as "kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com" (truncated) and stating: "Please
serve the document using a different method."
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
230
230
4/3/26, 1:09 AM Gmail - Electronic Service Undeliverable for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, Darrin D'Agostino, Amanda...
M Gmail Kevin Bass <kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com>
Electronic Service Undeliverable for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori
Rice-Spearman, Darrin D'Agostino, Amanda McSween, Lauren Cobbs, Tamara
Mancini, Simon Williams, Mia Myers, John DeToledo; Envelope Number: 111913822
2 messages
no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud <no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud> Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 7:16 AM
To: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Service Undeliverable
EFILE
TEXAS.gov·
Envelope Number: 111913822
Case Number: DC-2025-CV-1817
Case Style: Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, Darrin
D'Agostino, Amanda McSween, Lauren Cobbs, Tamara
Mancini, Simon Williams, Mia Myers, John DeToledo
This is a notification that service was undeliverable for the contact(s) listed below. Please serve the document using a
different method.
Service Undeliverable To
Contact Kevin N. Bass
Filing Details
Case Number DC-2025-CV-1817
Case Style Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, Darrin D'Agostino, Amanda McSween, Lauren
Cobbs, Tamara Mancini, Simon Williams, Mia Myers, John DeToledo
Date/Time Submitted 3/3/2026 7:16 AM CST
Activity Requested Amended Filing
Filed By Kevin Bass
Service Contacts Other Service Contacts not associated with a party on the case:
Tristan Garza (tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov)
Karla Gutierrez (karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov)
Scott Smith (scott.smith@oag.texas.gov)
Kevin Bass (kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com)
For technical assistance, contact your service provider
·EFILETEXAS.gov·
Need Help? Help
Visit: https://efiletexas.gov/contacts.htm
Email: support@eFileTexas.gov
Please do not reply to this email. It was automatically generated.
231
231
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8e0a582274&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1858646904394015660&simpl=msg-f:18586469043940156... 1/2
4/3/26, 1:09 AMGmail - Electronic Service Undeliverable for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, Darrin D'Agostino, Amanda...
no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud <no-reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud>Tue, Mar 3, 2026 at 7:16 AM
To: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Service Undeliverable
EFILE
Envelope Number: 111913822
TEXAS.gov·
Case Number: DC-2025-CV-1817
Case Style: Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, Darrin
D'Agostino, Amanda McSween, Lauren Cobbs, Tamara
Mancini, Simon Williams, Mia Myers, John De Toledo
This is a notification that service was undeliverable for the contact(s) listed below. Please serve the document using a
different method.
Service Undeliverable To
ContactKevin N. Bass
Filing Details
Case NumberDC-2025-CV-1817
Case StyleKevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, Darrin D'Agostino, Amanda McSween, Lauren
Cobbs, Tamara Mancini, Simon Williams, Mia Myers, John De Toledo
Date/Time Submitted3/3/2026 7:16 AM CST
Activity RequestedAnswer/Response
Filed ByKevin Bass
Service ContactsOther Service Contacts not associated with a party on the case:
Tristan Garza (tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov)
Karla Gutierrez (karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov)
Scott Smith (scott.smith@oag.texas.gov)
Kevin Bass (kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com)
[Quoted text hidden]
232
232
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=8e0a582274&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1858646904394015660&simpl=msg-f:18586469043940156...2/2
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT A-2
Gmail eFile Notification History
Screenshot of Plaintiff's Gmail inbox filtered to eFileTexas
notifications, showing all notifications are for Plaintiff's own
filings. No notifications of Defendants' filings were ever
received.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
233
233
4/3/26, 1:08 AM
= M Gmail
Compose
Search results - kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com - Gmail
Q from:efilingmail.tylertech.cloud
·
Any time · Has attachment To · Is unread Advanced search
Most recent 1·23 o
no-reply 2 Inbox Filing Accepted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, D
no-reply 2 Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, [
no-reply 2 Inbox Electronic Service Undeliverable for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori F
no-reply Inbox Filing Accepted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearr
no-reply Inbox Filing Accepted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearr
no-reply Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spear
no-reply Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spear
no-reply Inbox Filing Returned for Envelope Number: 109682162 in Case: DC-2025-CV-1817, Kev
no-reply Inbox Filing Returned for Envelope Number: 109682162 in Case: DC-2025-CV-1817, Kev
no-reply 2 Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spear
no-reply 5 Inbox Filing Accepted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, D
no-reply 5 Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, [
no-reply Inbox Filing Accepted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearr
no-reply Inbox Filing Returned for Envelope Number: 109019270 in Case: DC-2025-CV-1817, Kev
no-reply Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, [
no-reply Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spearman, [
no-reply Inbox Filing Returned for Envelope Number: 108969925 in Case: DC-2025-CV-1817, Kev
no-reply Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs. Lori Rice-Spear
234
234
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/from%3Aefilingmail.tylertech.cloud 1/1
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT A-3
Gmail Search · No Notifications After March 3,
2026
Gmail search for eFileTexas notifications after March 3, 2026,
confirming zero notifications received after that date.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
235
235
4/3/26, 1:08 AM
Search results - kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com - Gmail
Gmail
Compose
after:2026/03/03 from:efilingmail.tylertech.cloud
Has attachment
To
Advanced search
Most recent 1·3 o
no-reply 2 Inbox Filing Accepted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs.Lori Rice-Spearman,D
no-reply 2 Inbox Filing Submitted for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs.Lori Rice-Spearman,[
no-reply 2 Inbox Electronic Service Undeliverable for Case: DC-2025-CV-1817; Kevin Bassvs.Lori F
236
236
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/after%3A2026%2F03%2F03+from%3Aefilingmail.tylertech.cloud 1/1
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT B
Notice of Submission (March 13, 2026)
Defendants· Notice of Submission requesting the Court rule
without oral hearing. Automated Certificate of eService shows
Status: ERROR for Plaintiff.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
237
237
Lubbock County - 237th District Court
Filed 3/13/2026 3:42 PM
Sara L. Smith
§
Lubbock County, Texas
SC
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS,
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
vs.
OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
§
DARRIN D·AGOSTINO, D.O.,
§
M.P.H., M.B.A., in his official capacity
§
as Provost and Executive Vice
§
President of Academics of Texas Tech
§
University Health Sciences Center; and
§
AMANDA McSWEEN, in her official
§
capacity as Managing Director of
§
Enrollment Services and University
§
Registrar of Texas Tech University
§
Health Sciences Center,
§
§
237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Defendants.
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Please take notice that Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, Plea in
Abatement (the ·Motion·) will be submitted to the Court for consideration without oral hearing
on March 9, 2026, at 9:00 a.m.
The Court will consider the Motion, Plaintiff·s response, and any reply on file at that time.
No personal appearance is required. The Court may rule on the Motion after the submission date
without further notice or hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas
BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General
RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
238
238
Copy from re:SearchTX
/s/ Scott D. Smith
AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
KIMBERLY GDULA
Chief for General Litigation Division
SCOTT D. SMITH
Assistant Attorney General
Texas Bar No. 24011874
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711·2548
Telephone: (512) 917-3132
Division Fax: (512) 477-2348
Email: scott.smith@oag.texas.gov
Counsel for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served in
accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure upon the counsel of record below
on this 13th day of March 2026.
Kevin N. Bass
Via E-File
Phone: 512-333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Pro Se Plaintiff
/s/ Scott D. Smith
SCOTT D. SMITH
Assistant Attorney General
2
Copy from re:SearchTX
239
239
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Karla Gutierrez on behalf of Scott Smith
Bar No. 24011874
karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 112412497
Filing Code Description: NOTC - Notice
Filing Description: Notice of Submission
Status as of 3/13/2026 3:55 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Darrin D'Agostino
| Name | BarNumber | Email | TimestampSubmitted | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Karla Gutierrez | | karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov | 3/13/2026 3:42:10 PM | SENT |
| Scott D. Smith | | scott.smith@oag.texas.gov | 3/13/2026 3:42:10 PM | SENT |
Associated Case Party: Kevin Bass
| Name | BarNumber | Email | TimestampSubmitted | Status |
N. Bass | | kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com | 3/13/2026 3:42:10 PM | ERROR |
|| Kevin
--| --- | --- | --- | --- |
240
240
Copy from re:SearchTX
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT C
Proposed Order (Filed March 13, Signed March 26,
2026)
Pre-drafted order submitted by Defendants on the same day as the
Notice of Submission. Signed by the Court on March 26, 2026.
Automated Certificate of eService shows Status: ERROR for
Plaintiff.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
241
241
federal action has been finally disposed.
Filed 3/26/2026 3:49 PM
Sara L. Smith
Lubbock County - 237th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
TB
KEVIN N. BASS,
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
§
§
§
vs.
OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
§
DARRIN D·AGOSTINO, D.O.,
§
M.P.H., M.B.A., in his official capacity
§
as Provost and Executive Vice
§
President of Academics of Texas Tech
§
University Health Sciences Center; and
§
AMANDA McSWEEN, in her official
§
capacity as Managing Director of
§
Enrollment Services and University
§
Registrar of Texas Tech University
§
Health Sciences Center,
§
§
Defendants.
§
237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS· PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PLEA IN ABATEMENT
Plaintiff,
On this day the Court considered Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative,
Plea in Abatement (the ·Motion·). The Court, having considered the Motion, Plaintiff·s response,
Defendants· reply, the pleadings on file, and the applicable law, finds that the Motion should be
GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction is GRANTED.
The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff·s claims. Accordingly,
Plaintiff·s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in the alternative, Defendants· Plea in Abatement is
GRANTED. Accordingly, all proceedings in this case are ABATED pending final disposition of
the parallel civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas styled Kevin
N. Bass v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, et al., Civil Action No. 5:25-cv-00244H-BV (the ·federal action·). The parties shall notify the Court within fourteen (14) days after the
242
242
Copy from re:SearchTX
Les Hatch
SIGNED on March 26, 2026
HONORABLE LES HATCH
2
Copy from re:SearchTX
243
243
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Karla Gutierrez on behalf of Scott Smith
Bar No. 24011874
karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 112411933
Filing Code Description: ORDR - Order
Filing Description: 20260313_Proposed Order
Status as of 3/26/2026 4:09 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Darrin D'Agostino
| Name | BarNumber | Email | TimestampSubmitted | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scott D. Smith | | scott.smith@oag.texas.gov | 3/13/2026 3:36:55 PM | SENT |
| Karla Gutierrez | | karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov | 3/13/2026 3:36:55 PM | SENT |
Associated Case Party: Kevin Bass
| Name | BarNumber | Email | TimestampSubmitted | Status |
| Kevin N. Bass | | kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com | 3/13/2026 3:36:55 PM | ERROR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
244
244
Copy from re:SearchTX
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT D
Reply in Support of Defendants· PTJ (March 18,
2026)
Defendants· 10-page Reply raising new arguments regarding
ripeness, futility of amendment, and academic deference · none of
which Plaintiff had the opportunity to address.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
245
245
TB
KEVIN N. BASS,
§
Filed 3/18/2026 3:29 PM
Sara L. Smith
Lubbock County - 237th District Court
Lubbock County, Texas
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§
Plaintiff,
§
§
§
vs.
OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
§
DARRIN D·AGOSTINO, D.O., M.P.H., §
M.B.A., in his official capacity as Provost
§
and Executive Vice President of
§
Academics of Texas Tech
§
University Health Sciences Center; and
§
AMANDA McSWEEN, in her official
§
capacity as Managing Director of
§
Enrollment Services and University
§
Registrar of Texas Tech University
§
Health Sciences Center,
§
§
Defendants.
§
237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
DEFENDANTS· REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, PLEA IN ABATEMENT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COME NOW, DARRIN D·AGOSTINO, D.O., M.P.H., M.B.A., in his official capacity as
Provost and Executive Vice President of Academics of Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Center, and AMANDA McSWEEN, in her official capacity as Managing Director of Enrollment
Services and University Registrar of Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (collectively,
·Defendants·) in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and file this Reply in Support of their
Plea to the Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, Plea in Abatement, and would respectfully show the
Court as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff·s Fourth Amended Petition narrows its rhetoric but not its substance. Although
Plaintiff now repeatedly characterizes this case as ·procedure-only,· the relief he seeks would
246
246
Copy from re:SearchTX
require this Court to supervise how a public university administers its education-record processes
in connection with an academic dismissal. Sovereign immunity does not permit such intrusion.
Plaintiff·s theory rests on the premise that Texas Government Code § 559.004 and
TTUHSC·s internal policy, HSC OP 77.13, convert record-inspection logistics into purely
ministerial duties enforceable by injunction. They do not. Section 559.004 requires a governmental
body to establish a reasonable procedure, and TTUHSC has done so. Plaintiff·s dissatisfaction with
how that procedure was applied to his situation does not transform discretionary administrative
judgment into ultra vires conduct.
Because Plaintiff challenges discretionary acts rather than conduct taken without legal
authority, sovereign immunity bars this suit. Even if jurisdiction existed, abatement remains
warranted due to the parallel federal action involving the same disciplinary nucleus and the same
officials. Accordingly, the Plea should be granted.
II. REPLY
A. Plaintiff Has Not Alleged Ultra Vires Conduct
The ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity is narrow. Under City of El Paso v.
Heinrich, sovereign immunity does not bar suits seeking prospective relief against officials who
act without legal authority or who fail to perform a purely ministerial duty.¹ 284 S.W.3d 366, 372-
73 (Tex. 2009). The exception does not permit courts to control discretionary governmental
conduct, nor does it authorize judicial supervision of administrative implementation mechanics
simply because a plaintiff labels them ·procedural.·
¹ Plaintiff·s reliance on Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, 692 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. 2024), is misplaced.
Hensley addressed statutory limits that expressly constrained the Commission·s authority to take specific disciplinary
action·not discretionary implementation of broadly worded procedural language. Id. at 195-97. Here, by contrast,
§ 559.004 does not prescribe specific implementation mechanics for record inspection or amendment; it requires only
that a governmental body establish a reasonable procedure. Determining what is reasonable necessarily involves
administrative judgment. Hensley does not transform discretionary implementation of a broadly worded statute into a
purely ministerial duty.
2
247
247
Copy from re:SearchTX
Plaintiff does not allege that Defendants lacked authority over education records. To the
contrary, his Petition confirms that TTUHSC maintains his records and administers a published
inspection and amendment procedure. His complaint concerns how inspection sessions were
structured, how scheduling was handled, and how his amendment request was processed. Those
allegations, even if taken as true, concern the exercise of administrative judgment within the scope
of Defendants· authority. To the extent Plaintiff references transcript review or correction, those
allegations likewise implicate discretionary academic and administrative judgment, not the failure
to perform a ministerial duty.
Ultra vires jurisdiction turns on the absence of legal authority·not disagreement with how
that authority is exercised. Plaintiff·s live pleading does not allege conduct outside Defendants·
statutory or institutional authority. It therefore fails to satisfy Heinrich·s threshold requirement.
Plaintiff challenges discretionary implementation rather than unauthorized action. The ultra vires
exception therefore does not apply.
B. Section 559.004 Does Not Create a Purely Ministerial Duty
Plaintiff·s central argument is that Texas Government Code § 559.004 imposes a
mandatory, ministerial obligation that Defendants have failed to perform. The statute provides that
a state governmental body ·shall establish a reasonable procedure· under which an individual may
seek correction of information and that the procedure ·may not unduly burden· the individual.
That language does not eliminate discretion.
The Legislature did not prescribe a specific format for inspection, copying, recording, or
third-party attendance. It did not define what constitutes a ·reasonable· procedure or what qualifies
as an ·undue burden.· By employing flexible terms such as ·reasonable· and ·unduly burden,·
the Legislature necessarily entrusted implementation to the governmental body. Determining what
3
248
248
Copy from re:SearchTX
is reasonable in this context requires administrative judgment. A duty is ministerial only when ·the
law clearly spells out the duty to be performed·with such certainty that nothing is left to the
exercise of discretion.· Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Tex. 1991). Section
559.004 does not meet that standard.
TTUHSC has established a procedure·OP 77.13. Plaintiff·s disagreement with how
inspection was conducted does not demonstrate that Defendants failed to establish a procedure. At
most, it reflects disagreement with how that procedure was administered. That is not a ministerial
omission. Section 559.004 leaves room for institutional judgment; it does not support ultra vires
jurisdiction.
C. OP 77.13 Does Not Transform Administrative Discretion into Enforceable Ministerial
Duties
Plaintiff further argues that TTUHSC·s internal policy, OP 77.13, functions as ·enabling
law· and therefore constrains discretion in a manner enforceable under Houston Belt & Terminal
Ry. Co. v. City of Houston, 487 S.W.3d 154 (Tex. 2016). That analogy fails.
Houston Belt involved a municipal ordinance defining the parameters of a drainage fee and
statutory limits on its imposition. It did not involve internal academic policy governing record
administration. An internal university policy outlining procedural steps does not eliminate
administrative discretion in implementation, nor does it waive sovereign immunity. Even when
policies employ mandatory language, the existence of procedural steps does not render every
aspect of their administration ministerial. See Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P. v. Emmett, 459
S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2015) (recognizing that statutory ·shall· language does not eliminate discretion
where implementation requires judgment).
Plaintiff·s allegations concern inspection format, copying restrictions, recording, and
scheduling. Those are administrative judgments committed to institutional discretion. Nothing in
4
249
249
Copy from re:SearchTX
OP 77.13 strips Defendants of that discretion or converts those decisions into mechanical duties
enforceable by injunction. OP 77.13 governs process but does not eliminate discretion in its
administration. Ultra vires relief is therefore unavailable.
D.Academic Record Administration Is Entitled to Judicial Deference
The transcript notation at issue arises from academic disciplinary proceedings. Courts
consistently recognize that academic determinations and related record administration fall within
the discretionary authority of educational institutions. See Regents of the University of Michigan
v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 225 (1985); University of Texas Medical School at Houston v. Than, 901
S.W.2d 926, 931 (Tex. 1995); Alcorn v. Vaksman, 877 S.W.2d 390, 403 (Tex. App.·Houston [1st
Dist.] 1994, writ denied).
Although Plaintiff insists that he does not challenge the merits of the disciplinary decision,
the relief he seeks would require this Court to supervise the manner in which TTUHSC administers
education records associated with that decision. Judicial intrusion into those administrative
mechanics would undermine the deference courts afford academic institutions in disciplinary
matters. Academic record administration falls within institutional discretion. It is not subject to
ultra vires control by this Court.
E.Plaintiff·s Ripeness Theory Does Not Create Jurisdiction
Plaintiff contends that his claims are ripe because OP 77.13·s 45-day window expired. Even
assuming arguendo that his allegations are true for jurisdictional purposes, a dispute over timing
does not create ultra vires jurisdiction. Failure to meet an internal administrative deadline, even if
it occurred, does not constitute action without legal authority.
Ripeness does not expand ultra vires jurisdiction beyond purely ministerial duties, and it
requires a final and definitive position that inflicts a concrete injury. See Texas Dep·t of Protective
5
250
250
Copy from re:SearchTX
& Regulatory Servs. v. Mega Child Care, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 170, 198 (Tex. 2004). OP 77.13·s
provisions governing access to education records are patterned after the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (·FERPA·), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and its implementing regulations, which require
only that a student be given an ·opportunity to inspect and review· education records. 34 C.F.R. §
99.10. Neither OP 77.13 nor FERPA defines what constitutes an ·opportunity,· nor do they
mandate a minimum amount of time or prescribe the manner in which inspection must occur.
Plaintiff·s own pleading reflects ongoing administrative exchanges and multiple opportunities to
review the records at issue, including more than forty hours of access across seven days over a
three-month period. A disagreement over inspection logistics or the pace and structure of
administrative access does not create a justiciable ultra vires controversy. And even if Plaintiff
attempts to characterize TTUHSC·s position as a ·final· determination, the complained-of conduct
still concerns discretionary implementation of a reasonable procedure·not the failure to perform
a purely ministerial duty.
Accordingly, the ultra vires exception does not apply, and Plaintiff·s ripeness theory fails.
Plaintiff·s theory improperly reframes discretionary administration as jurisdictional error.
F. Abatement Remains Warranted
Even if this Court were to conclude that jurisdiction exists, abatement remains appropriate.
Defendants· request is grounded not merely in Rule 93 but in this Court·s inherent authority to
prevent duplicative litigation and inconsistent rulings. See Wyatt v. Shaw Plumbing Co., 760
S.W.2d 245, 248 (Tex. 1988); Curtis v. Gibbs, 511 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Tex. 1974); Van Dyke v.
Boswell, O·Toole, Davis & Pickering, 697 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Tex. 1985).
The parallel federal action arises from the same disciplinary proceedings, challenges the
same transcript consequences, and names the same officials. Immunity defenses are pending in
6
251
251
Copy from re:SearchTX
that forum. Permitting parallel litigation in two sovereign courts risks inconsistent rulings and
undermines the protection from litigation burdens that immunity is designed to provide. At a
minimum, orderly adjudication favors abatement pending resolution of the federal case.
G. Amendment is Futile
Under Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004),
dismissal is proper where pleadings affirmatively negate jurisdiction. Plaintiff has amended
repeatedly. His Fourth Amended Petition narrows its phrasing but continues to challenge
discretionary administrative conduct. No additional amendment can convert that conduct into a
purely ministerial duty. The jurisdictional defect is legal rather than factual. Further amendment
would therefore be futile, and dismissal is proper.
III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff's increasingly refined procedural framing does not alter the governing analysis.
Section 559.004 requires a reasonable procedure, and TTUHSC has established one. Plaintiff's
disagreement with how that procedure has been implemented does not constitute ultra vires
conduct. Sovereign immunity deprives this Court of subject-matter jurisdiction. Alternatively,
principles of comity and judicial economy warrant abatement pending resolution of the parallel
federal action.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants respectfully request that the
Court grant the Plea to the Jurisdiction and dismiss Plaintiff's claims without prejudice or,
alternatively, grant the Plea in Abatement and stay these proceedings pending final disposition of
the federal action, and grant all other and further relief to which Defendants may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
KEN PAXTON
Attorney General
7
252
252
Copy from re:SearchTX
BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General
RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General
AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation
KIMBERLY GDULA
Chief, General Litigation Division
/s/ Scott D. Smith
SCOTT D. SMITH
Assistant Attorney General
Texas Bar No. 24011874
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Telephone: (512) 917-3132
Division Fax: (512) 477-2348
Email: scott.smith@oag.texas.gov
Counsel for Defendants
8
253
253
Copy from re:SearchTX
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This will certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served in
accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure upon the party of record below
on this 18th day of March 2026.
Kevin N. Bass
Phone: 512-333-4092
Email: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Pro Se Plaintiff
/s/ Scott D. Smith
SCOTT D. SMITH
Assistant Attorney General
9
254
254
Copy from re:SearchTX
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Karla Gutierrez on behalf of Scott Smith
Bar No. 24011874
karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 112584730
Filing Code Description: Answer/Response
Filing Description: 20260318_Reply in Support of Defendants PTJ and
Plea in Abatement
Status as of 3/18/2026 3:48 PM CST
Associated Case Party: Darrin D'Agostino
| BarNumber | Email | TimestampSubmitted | Status |
|| Name
:--| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Karla Gutierrez | | karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov | 3/18/2026 3:29:07 PM | SENT |
| Scott D. Smith | | scott.smith@oag.texas.gov | 3/18/2026 3:29:07 PM | SENT |
Associated Case Party: Kevin Bass
| BarNumber | Email | TimestampSubmitted | Status |
|| Name
:--| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Kevin N. Bass | | kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com | 3/18/2026 3:29:07 PM | SENT |
255
255
Copy from re:SearchTX
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D'AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT E
Notice of Judgment (April 2, 2026)
Clerk's Notice of Judgment listing mailing addresses for all
eight Defendants. Plaintiff's name and address do not appear on
the notice.
Exhibit to Plaintiff's Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D'Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
256
256
STATE OF TEXAS
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CLERK
ROOM 105, COURTHOUSE
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK
SARA L. SMITH
PO Box 10536
DISTRICT CLERK
LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79408-3536
ALEXANDRA GONGORA
(806) 775-1317
FAX (806) 775-7992
CHIEF DEPUTY
April 02, 2026
Lauren Cobbs
3601 4·· Street Room 2B440
Lubbock, TX 79415
Darrin D'Agostino
3601 4·· Street
Lubbock, TX 79415
John C. Detoledo, M.D.
3601 4·· Street
Lubbock, TX 79430
Tamara Mancini
3601 4·· Street
Lubbock, TX 79415
Amanda McSween
3601 4·· Street
Lubbock, TX 79415
Mia Myers
3601 4·· Street
Lubbock, TX 79430
Lori Rice-Spearman
3601 4·· Street
Lubbock, TX 79415
Simon Williams
3601 4·· Street
Lubbock, TX 79415
Re: Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
In the 237th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas
Kevin Bass vs. Lori Rice-Spearman,Darrin D'Agostino,Amanda McSween,Lauren Cobbs,Tamara Mancini,Simon Williams,Mia
Myers,John DeToledo
JUDGMENT NOTICE
___x____ In compliance with Rule 306a(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, you are hereby notified that an Order On
Defendant's Plea To The Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, plea in abatement was signed in the above styled and
numbered cause on March 26, 2026 . If you are an individual (not a company), you
may have a right to claim exemptions to protect your property against seizure for
satisfaction of this judgment. Find out more by visiting TexasLawHelp.org.
______ In compliance with Rule 239(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, you are
hereby notified that a default judgment was signed in the above styled and numbered
cause on . Judgment was entered in favor of Kevin Bass and
against Lori Rice-spearman.
______ NOTICE OF SIGNING OF FINAL DIVORCE DECREE. In compliance with Rule 306(a)(3) of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure or Section 6.710 of the Texas Family Code, you are hereby notified that Divorce Decree was signed in the
above styled and numbered cause on .
The original decree or order is on file in the office of the District Clerk of Lubbock County, Texas, and a copy can be obtained in the District
Clerk's Archival Department located in the basement of the Lubbock County Courthouse, at the above address. You may also request a copy by
emailing dcarchives@lubbockcounty.gov. Copy costs are $1.00 per page. Please bring payment with you in the form of cash, credit/debit card,
or money order. The total cost may be obtained by contacting the Archives Department at 806-775-1322.
Dated: April 02, 2026
Tammie Bell, Deputy District Clerk
257
257
Copy from re:SearchTX
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT F
Emails from Defendants· Counsel at Correct Address
Four emails from AAG Scott D. Smith to Plaintiff at
kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com dated March 12, 13, 22, and 30, 2026,
demonstrating counsel was in direct contact with Plaintiff at the
correct email address throughout the period of failed e-service.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
258
258
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT F
Emails from Defendants· Counsel Scott D. Smith to
Plaintiff at Correct Email Address During Period of
Failed Electronic Service
Date: March 12·30, 2026
Description: Four emails from Assistant Attorney General Scott D. Smith to
Plaintiff Kevin N. Bass at kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com,
demonstrating that Defendants· counsel was in active, direct
communication with Plaintiff at the correct email address during
the same period (March 13·April 2, 2026) that the eFileTexas
system was failing to deliver state-case filings to the truncated
address ·kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com.·
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Response to Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
259
259
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT F-1
Scott Smith to Kevin Bass · State Case Communication
Date: March 12, 2026, 1:29 PM CST
Description: Email from Defendants· counsel regarding the state case (Bass v.
Rice-Spearman), sent to the correct email address
kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com. Sent one day before the Notice of
Submission was filed through the broken e-service system.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Response to Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
260
260
From: Scott Smith <Scott.Smith@oag.texas.gov>
To: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 19:29:03 +0000 (1:29 PM CST)
Subject: Bass v. Rice-Spearman, et al. - FERPA Records Request
Mr. Bass,
I am writing regarding your March 3, 2026 e-mail to the TTUHSC Registrar
requesting additional FERPA inspection sessions and related items.
As you know, this matter is currently the subject of pending litigation. You
have already been provided substantial access to your education records,
including multiple in-person review sessions totaling approximately fortythree hours. Under these circumstances, TTUHSC will not schedule additional
FERPA inspection sessions outside the litigation process at this time. To the
extent you seek additional materials or information, those requests should be
pursued through the discovery process in the litigation. TTUHSC believes it
has already provided access to education records consistent with its
obligations under applicable law.
Likewise, your request for a transcript amendment or annotation is also a
matter currently the subject to litigation. As a court ruling may impact this
request, TTUHSC will pause any processing of this request until the litigation
is resolved.
I also need to reiterate for clarity going forward that because you are a
litigant in an active case involving TTUHSC and its officials, all
communications regarding these matters must be directed to counsel. Sending
emails directly to TTUHSC personnel and copying me is not appropriate and
creates unnecessary confusion. Going forward, please direct any communications
concerning your records requests, the transcript issue you referenced, or any
related matters to me only, and do not contact TTUHSC employees directly.
Nothing in this email should be construed as waiving any defenses or positions
asserted by Defendants in the litigation.
Best Regards,
Scott D. Smith Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office
of the Attorney General of Texas Phone: 512-917-3132 Email:
scott.smith@oag.texas.gov
261
261
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT F-2
Scott Smith to Kevin Bass · Same Day as Notice of
Submission
Date: March 13, 2026, 3:17 PM CST
Description: Email from Defendants· counsel to the correct email address, sent
the same day Defendants filed the Notice of Submission (filed
3:36 PM) and Proposed Order through the e-service system that
recorded ·ERROR· for Plaintiff.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Response to Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
262
262
From: Scott Smith <Scott.Smith@oag.texas.gov>
To: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:17:00 +0000 (3:17 PM CST)
Subject: Re: TTUHSC Student Record - Follow-up on Outstanding FERPA
Inspection Request
Mr. Bass,
Your email below was sent directly to TTUHSC personnel despite my prior
instruction that, because this matter is the subject of pending litigation,
all communications regarding your records requests and related issues must be
directed to counsel.
Please do not contact TTUHSC employees directly regarding these matters. As I
previously explained, any requests for additional materials or information
should be pursued through the discovery process in the litigation, and any
communications concerning these issues should be directed to me only.
TTUHSC personnel have been instructed not to respond to your direct emails
regarding matters that are the subject of the litigation.
Nothing in this email should be construed as waiving any defenses or positions
asserted by Defendants.
Best Regards,
Scott D. Smith Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office
of the Attorney General of Texas Phone: 512-917-3132 Email:
scott.smith@oag.texas.gov
263
263
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT F-3
Scott Smith to Kevin Bass · Continued Direct Contact
Date: March 22, 2026, 3:45 PM CST
Description: Email from Defendants· counsel regarding the parallel federal
case, sent to the correct email address nine days after the
Notice of Submission and four days after the Reply brief ·
neither of which Plaintiff received.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Response to Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
264
264
From: Scott Smith <Scott.Smith@oag.texas.gov>
To: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:45:12 +0000 (3:45 PM CST)
Subject: RE: Bass v. TTUHSC - Conference re: Motion for Leave to Exceed Page
Limitation
Mr. Bass,
Defendants are unopposed to your Reply Brief exceeding the 10-page limit.
Best Regards,
Scott D. Smith Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office
of the Attorney General of Texas
265
265
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT F-4
Scott Smith to Kevin Bass · Four Days After Order
Signed
Date: March 30, 2026, 5:40 PM CST
Description: Email from Defendants· counsel regarding the federal case, sent
four days after the Court signed the Order dismissing the state
case · which Plaintiff still did not know about.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Response to Defendants· Plea to the Jurisdiction
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
266
266
From: Scott Smith <Scott.Smith@oag.texas.gov>
To: kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 23:40:26 +0000 (5:40 PM CST)
Subject: RE: Bass v. TTUHSC, No. 5:25-cv-00244-H-BV - Conference re Motion
for Leave to Amend
Mr. Bass,
Defendants are opposed.
Best Regards,
Scott D. Smith Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division Office
of the Attorney General of Texas
267
267
CAUSE NO. DC-2025-CV-1817
KEVIN N. BASS v. D·AGOSTINO & McSWEEN
IN THE 237th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS
EXHIBIT G
Plaintiff·s eFileTexas Profile · Correct Email
Screenshot of Plaintiff·s eFileTexas user profile showing
registered email as ·kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com· (correct),
demonstrating the truncated address originated in the court·s
case management system.
Exhibit to Plaintiff·s Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5)
and Motion for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Bass v. D·Agostino & McSween, Cause No. DC-2025-CV-1817
268
268
4/3/26, 12:59 AM
eFile - Profile
User Profile
Profile Information
Edit
First Name
Kevin
Middle Name
Last Name
Bass
Email
kbassphiladelphia@gmail.com
Support
269
269
https://efiletx.tylertech.cloud/OfsEfsp/ui/my-account/profile
1/1
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 113237136
Filing Code Description: Motion for New Trial
Filing Description: Plaintiff's Sworn Motion Under Rule 306a(5) and Motion
for New Trial Under Rule 329b
Status as of 4/7/2026 8:20 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name | BarNumber | Email | TimestampSubmitted | Status
Tristan AGarza | | tristan.garza@oag.texas.gov | 4/3/2026 2:56:07 PM | SENT
Karla Gutierrez | | karla.gutierrez@oag.texas.gov | 4/3/2026 2:56:07 PM | SENT
Scott D. Smith | | scott.smith@oag.texas.gov | 4/3/2026 2:56:07 PM | SENT
Kevin N. Bass | | kbassphiladelphi@gmail.com | 4/3/2026 2:56:07 PM | ERROR
270
270