Stephen Fontenot v. Tiffany Stinson
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9624
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Fontenot, a Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputy, was sued in Texas state court by Stinson for common-law torts including intentional torts and false imprisonment.
- Stinson also filed a federal court complaint naming Harris County and Sheriff Tommy Thomas for common-law tort claims arising from the same subject matter.
- The federal case was removed to federal court, then dismissed against Harris County and Thomas; Fontenot’s involvement continued.
- On remand to state court, Fontenot moved for summary judgment arguing immunity under TTCA §101.106(a), (e), (f).
- The trial court denied Fontenot’s motion; the appellate court addressed whether TTCA’s election-of-remedies bar applies to Fontenot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §101.106(a) bars Stinson’s suit against Fontenot | Stinson’s federal suit against Harris County did not bar Fontenot as not brought under TTCA. | Stinson irrevocably elected Harris County by filing suit there, which bars suit against Fontenot for the same subject matter. | Yes; §101.106(a) bars Fontenot. |
| Whether Stinson could sue both the governmental unit and the employee and still avoid §101.106(a) | Stinson sued Fontenot first, and then Harris County; the elections should not render Fontenot immune. | Under Garcia and consistent construction, both subsections can apply; election against the unit bars the employee. | Subsections (a) and (b) may apply in a single suit; election bars Fontenot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (construction of TTCA §101.106 governing elections)
- Garcia, 253 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2008) (subsection (b) bars claims against unit when both unit and employee sued; consistent construction)
- Crowder, 349 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (consistency in 101.106 interpretation; open courts due process considerations not reached)