Rey Garza v. Roxana Regalado Harrison and Joseph Santellana, Individually and as Respresentative of the Estate of Jonathen Anthony Santellana, 531 S.W.3d 852

Rey Garza, an off-duty Navasota (Grimes County) police officer, lived in a Harris County apartment complex as a “courtesy officer” under a written agreement that limited courtesy officers’ powers and required calling local law enforcement rather than pursuing suspects.
On Nov. 13, 2013, Garza observed Jonathen Santellana at the complex, retrieved his personal firearm, approached Santellana’s car, displayed ID/badge, and attempted to detain him after seeing what he believed was marijuana; Santellana tried to drive away.
Garza fired seven rounds into Santellana’s car, killing him. Santellana’s parents sued Garza individually for wrongful death in Harris County.
Garza moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.106(f), arguing he acted within the scope of his employment so the City of Navasota (a governmental unit) is the proper defendant under the Texas Tort Claims Act.
The trial court denied dismissal; Garza appealed interlocutorily. The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether Garza’s conduct was within the scope of his employment (i.e., performance of duties assigned by his employer).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Garza’s fatal shooting was conduct within the scope of his employment	Plaintiffs argued Garza acted as a courtesy officer for the apartment complex and/or outside any Navasota duty, so he’s individually liable	Garza argued his investigatory arrest and use of force were customary police duties; therefore suit is effectively against the City and must be dismissed under §101.106(f)	Held: Garza’s extra‑jurisdictional attempted arrest and shooting were not performance of a duty lawfully assigned by Navasota, so conduct was outside scope of employment; dismissal under §101.106(f) denied
Whether statutory authority to act outside jurisdiction equals an assigned duty by employer	Plaintiffs: statutory allowances do not create an employer-assigned duty here	Garza: statutes permitting off‑jurisdiction arrests mean his actions were police duties	Held: Statutory authority (may arrest) is not the same as an employer‑assigned duty (shall); absence of a Navasota policy or tasking to act outside city/Grimes County means no scope-of-employment protection

City of Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (discusses election-of-remedies amendment to Tort Claims Act)
Laverie v. Wetherbe, 517 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. 2017) (scope‑of‑employment and §101.106(f) standards)
Alexander v. Walker, 435 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2014) (adopts Restatement negative definition of scope of employment)
Halili v. State, 430 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (officer’s peace‑officer status tied to jurisdiction)
City of Balch Springs v. Austin, 315 S.W.3d 219 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010) (scope‑of‑employment tied to duties generally assigned by employer)