Jose Gerardo Padilla, Giovanna Padilla and Houston Best Foods & Services, LLC D/B/A Doneraki Fulton v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, 497 S.W.3d 78

Background

Appellants (Jose Gerardo Padilla, Giovanna Padilla, and Doneraki Fulton) operated a restaurant on Fulton Street; Metro built a light-rail (North Line) adjacent to the property in 2011.
Construction was performed by a private design-builder (HRT) under contract with Metro; the contract required minimizing impacts and maintaining access except for short periods.
Appellants allege construction and related utility breaks blocked all entrances/exits for months, prevented trash removal, caused utility outages, and produced more than $500,000 in losses; they closed the restaurant in November 2011.
Appellants sued Metro for inverse condemnation under Tex. Const. art. I, § 17, claiming a temporary, total denial of access (they had abandoned the permanent partial-access claim on appeal).
Metro moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing (inter alia) the harms were non-compensable community damages, Metro lacked the requisite intent, and contractors — not Metro — performed the work.
The trial court granted Metro’s plea; the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding the jurisdictional evidence raised fact issues both on whether access was totally denied temporarily and on Metro’s intent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether construction caused a temporary, total denial of access	Padilla averred he was present daily and that all entrances/exits were blocked for months, creating a genuine fact issue	Metro relied on its project director’s affidavit that HRT provided alternative access and disruptions were typical, non-compensable inconveniences	Padilla’s affidavit was competent evidence and raised a fact issue on temporary total denial of access; dismissal improper
Whether Metro had requisite intent for inverse condemnation	Appellants argued Metro, which authorized the project and monitored it, knew or should have known damage was substantially certain	Metro argued the contract required HRT to minimize impacts and contractors — not Metro — performed the work, negating Metro’s intent	Fact issue exists as to Metro’s knowledge/intent; contractor performance does not preclude governmental liability
Whether alleged harms are non-compensable community damages	Appellants contended blocked access was peculiarly harmful to them and compensable	Metro argued noise, dust, traffic diversion and similar construction impacts are common community harms not compensable	Court held impaired access (if total and temporary) is distinct from community damages and may be compensable; fact question remains
Whether trial court properly resolved jurisdictional facts at plea stage	Appellants argued jurisdictional facts were disputed and should be resolved by trier of fact	Metro argued its evidence established lack of jurisdiction as a matter of law	Court applied Miranda standard, credited nonmovant evidence, and held genuine fact issues precluded dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (examining jurisdictional‑fact challenge to governmental plea to the jurisdiction)
City of San Antonio v. Pollock, 284 S.W.3d 809 (government acts intentionally when it knows specific act causes identifiable harm or damage is substantially certain)
State v. Whataburger, Inc., 60 S.W.3d 256 (distinguishing community damages from property‑specific access impairments)
State v. Heal, 917 S.W.2d 6 (material and substantial impairment of access standard)
City of Dallas v. Jennings, 142 S.W.3d 310 (government cannot avoid liability simply because contractors performed the work)