City of Houston v. Sanchez

On June 15, 2022, Houston Police Department Officer Johan Alvarenga, driving a police cruiser with its emergency equipment activated, rear-ended Jesus Sanchez at the intersection of South Gessner Drive and Richmond Avenue in Houston.¹ Sanchez's second amended petition says he was stopped at a red light behind another vehicle and blocked in by traffic on both sides, saw the police vehicle's lights, but heard no siren, and that "[i]t is unknown at this time why Johan Alvarenga had his emergency lights activated".² It alleges that the officer failed to pay attention, failed to control his speed, failed to brake in time, and failed to keep a safe distance, and that he "failed to operate his vehicle with due regard for the safety of all persons" and/or acted with reckless disregard.³

Sanchez sued the City of Houston for negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act on April 5, 2024, and amended twice. Houston moved to dismiss under Rule 91a, arguing that the pleading alleged no facts negating the Act's 9-1-1 and emergency exceptions; the 295th District Court of Harris County (Judge Donna Roth) denied the motion on May 23, 2024.¹ The First Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum opinion on June 12, 2025, holding that Sanchez pleaded enough to negate the exceptions.² This is a petition for review of an interlocutory ruling on a motion to dismiss. Houston petitioned on January 7, 2026; the Court requested a response, which Sanchez filed April 8; Houston replied April 20; and on October 23, 2026 the Court granted the petition and set the case for oral argument on March 3, 2027 (Docket).

Houston presents one issue: where a plaintiff expressly pleads that an officer was traveling with emergency lights activated, does he plead sufficient facts to negate the Act's 9-1-1 and emergency exceptions with conclusory allegations of reckless disregard or breach of duty of the kind this Court suggested in Powell are insufficient to show recklessness¹? Sanchez argues the question is narrower: whether his pleaded acts and omissions are factual, not conclusory.²

Petitioner (City of Houston): Governmental immunity is the starting point; the plaintiff must plead facts showing the Tort Claims Act clearly waives it, and an exception that withdraws the waiver must be negated by facts, not by reciting a statute or stating conclusions. Sanchez pleaded that the officer was using emergency equipment, so the 9-1-1 and emergency exceptions are in play, and he pleaded no facts that would negate them.¹ Houston adds that the Court has recently clarified what a plaintiff must plead to overcome immunity but has not applied that to these exceptions on a Rule 91a record.²

Respondent (Jesus Sanchez): His second amended petition sets out specific acts and omissions, not conclusions, and Houston ignores the rest of the paragraph on which it relies: that it is unknown why the officer had his lights activated and that Sanchez heard no siren. He says the pleaded facts are sufficient to defeat a Rule 91a motion and consistent with decisions of the First and Fourteenth Courts, so review should be denied.³

Petitioner (reply): Sanchez is right that the opinion matches several intermediate-court decisions, but that shows the courts of appeals are divided, not that there is no conflict; the disagreement among and within the First and Fourteenth Courts is significant.⁴

Houston says the Court has decided several recent cases on pleading sufficiency to overcome immunity and on the emergency exception at summary judgment, but not on pleading sufficiency under Rule 91a, and that the First and Fourteenth Courts disagree "to the point that the outcome of any particular appeal is no more predictable than a coin toss." It identifies three other petitions it filed on the same question: Nos. 24-1008, 25-0774, and 25-0997.¹ Sanchez responds that a single conflict between the two courts does not justify review.²

None

Cases on this site that cite the same authorities as this one. This is a list found by comparing citations, not a recommendation; read the opinions before relying on any of them.

• City of Houston v. Polk (25-0997)
  Cites the same authorities, including City of Houston v. Polk (cited 10 times here and 7 there); City of Austin v. Powell (cited 21 times here and 20 there); City of Houston v. Hernandez (cited 12 times here and 4 there)