Paxton Digs Deeper on Secret EPIC City Meeting
May 5, 2026 – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against the Double R Municipal Utility District No. 2A, alleging violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) tied to what he describes as an attempted illegal takeover connected to the proposed EPIC City development.
The lawsuit targets the utility district, which spans parts of Hunt County and Collin County, along with individuals Paxton identifies as improperly acting as board directors. According to the filing, the group conducted a meeting on September 12, 2025, in a remote field under conditions that failed to meet the transparency and public notice requirements mandated by state law.
According to the lawsuit, the meeting was held in a remote field rather than a typical public venue and was not properly disclosed to the public. Under the Texas Open Meetings Act, government bodies like municipal utility districts are required to provide clear notice of when and where meetings will take place and what topics will be discussed, ensuring the public has a fair opportunity to attend.
During that meeting, the defendants allegedly took sweeping actions, including firing legal counsel, accepting the resignation of the entire sitting board, appointing a new slate of directors, and attempting to annex more than 400 acres of land. State officials claim the land in question is tied to the planned EPIC City project, an initiative associated with the East Plano Islamic Center.
During the meeting, the individuals involved allegedly carried out a series of major decisions in rapid succession. These included terminating the district’s legal counsel, accepting the resignation of the entire existing board, appointing a completely new board of directors, and attempting to annex more than 400 acres of land.
Paxton’s office argues that the notice for the meeting was intentionally vague and failed to provide meaningful access to the public, a key requirement under TOMA. The lawsuit also alleges that the scope of the decisions—particularly the annexation tied to EPIC City—was not properly disclosed in advance.
“This was not just a technical violation—it was a deliberate attempt to bypass the law,” Paxton said in a statement. “We will continue to use every legal tool available to ensure transparency and accountability.”
The legal action seeks to void the attempted annexation and have the court declare the actions taken during the meeting unlawful. It also requests injunctive relief to prevent further violations.
This case builds on earlier legal efforts by Paxton’s office. In prior proceedings, the state secured a temporary restraining order and later a temporary injunction blocking the same group from taking additional action on behalf of the utility district. Those rulings also invalidated most actions taken by the disputed board after the September meeting.
The controversy has drawn attention in Northeast Texas, particularly in areas near the proposed development. Hunt County, which borders Hopkins County to the east, has seen increased public interest due to its proximity to the land involved in the dispute.
Municipal utility districts, or MUDs, are commonly used in Texas to finance infrastructure for new developments, including water, sewer, and road systems. Because they have the authority to levy taxes and issue bonds, their governance is subject to strict transparency laws like TOMA.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have broader implications for how such districts operate and how large-scale developments are approved across the state. For now, the case remains pending as courts weigh whether the actions taken in September violated state law and whether the attempted expansion tied to EPIC City can proceed.
