Jonathan Earl Clark v. Dwane Mary Wilson
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Date FiledJuly 14, 2026
Docket01-25-00009-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Opinion issued July 14, 2026
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-25-00009-CV
———————————
JONATHAN EARL CLARK, Appellant
V.
DWANE MARY WILSON, Appellee
On Appeal from the 11th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2024-61994
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellee Dwane Mary Wilson sued the City of Houston and Appellant
Jonathan Earl Clark, alleging Clark was acting within the course and scope of his
employment with the City when he crashed a City firetruck into Wilson. Clark—
and not the City—filed a Rule 91a motion to dismiss pursuant to sections
101.106(a) and (e), which provide:
(a) The filing of a suit under this chapter against a governmental unit
constitutes an irrevocable election by the plaintiff and immediately
and forever bars any suit or recovery by the plaintiff against any
individual employee of the governmental unit regarding the same
subject matter.
...
(e) If a suit is filed under this chapter against both a governmental unit
and any of its employees, the employees shall immediately be
dismissed on the filing of a motion by the governmental unit.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.106(e). The trial court denied Clark’s
motion, and he filed this interlocutory appeal. See id. § 51.014(a)(5).
Clark argues the trial court erred by denying his Rule 91a motion to dismiss.
But as we have recently held, Clark is not entitled to Rule 91a dismissal under
section 101.106(a) because he was sued in his official capacity, not his individual
capacity, nor under section 101.106(e) because he filed the motion to dismiss, not
the City. See Hsu v. Hernandez, No. 01-24-00948-CV, 2025 WL 3236294, at *4–5
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 20, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reviewing the
issue de novo); City of Houston v. Tran, No. 01-24-00235-CV, 2025 WL 309723,
at *4–5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 28, 2025, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
We overrule Clark’s appellate issue and affirm the trial court’s denial.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil.
2