demonstrate an absence of jurisdiction, and the defect is incurable, then the cause is properly dismissed. Id. If the plaintiffs pleadings are insufficient to demonstrate the court’s jurisdiction, but do not affirmatively show incurable defects in jurisdiction, the proper remedy is to allow the plaintiff an opportunity to amend before dismissal. Brown, 80 S.W.3d at 555; Peek, 779 rson sought to be deposed be a potentially liable defendant in the claim under investigation. Because a portion of the claim under investigation — a claim against Altivia — is under the jurisdiction of the state district court, the court did not err in denying the City’s plea to the jurisdiction. See City of Willow Park v. Squaw Creek Downs, L.P., 166 S.W.3d 336, 340-41 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2005, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s order
holding citys plea to the jurisdiction in rule 202 proceeding properly denied because district court had jurisdiction over portion of claim under investigation even if city and governmental agency had exclusive jurisdiction over another portion of claim holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property holding that the court of federal claims had pendant jurisdiction over a state law contract claim that was part of the same case as a claim over which the court of federal claims had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 usc  1498b holding district court had no jurisdiction over citys decision to shut off customers water holding that the court had no jurisdiction over an alleged breach of a plea agreement