context: I disagree. A governmental officer's claim that a plaintiff is only seeking retrospective damages is not an affirmative defense.-' We have treated claims seeking retrospec-' five damages as being barred by immunity from suit--which implicates courts' subject matter jurisdiction--and dismissing the claims.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 354 S.W.3d 368, 379
citation_a.parenthetical: "Because the Officers sought only retrospective relief, their declaratory judgment claims must be dismissed."
citation_a.sentence: See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 380 (“[Heinrich’s] claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against -the Board members and the mayor in their official capacities may go forward, but we dismiss her retrospective claims against them.”); see also City of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368, 379 (Tex.2011) (“Because the Officers sought only retrospective relief, their declaratory judgment claims must be dismissed.”). Therefore, a request for findings of fact was not necessary in order to preserve the issue.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 284 S.W.3d 380, 380
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Heinrich's] claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against -the Board members and the mayor in their official capacities may go forward, but we dismiss her retrospective claims against them."
citation_b.sentence: See Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 380 (“[Heinrich’s] claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against -the Board members and the mayor in their official capacities may go forward, but we dismiss her retrospective claims against them.”); see also City of Dallas v. Albert, 354 S.W.3d 368, 379 (Tex.2011) (“Because the Officers sought only retrospective relief, their declaratory judgment claims must be dismissed.”). Therefore, a request for findings of fact was not necessary in order to preserve the issue.