Erica Lee Castillo, Individually and as Next Friend of Jesus Rodriguez v. the City of San Antonio

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 04-25-00122-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-25-00122-CV

Erica Lee CASTILLO, Individually and as next Friend of Jesus Rodriguez, Appellant

v.

The CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024CI05166 Honorable Nicole Garza, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Velia J. Meza, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice H. Todd McCray, Justice Velia J. Meza, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 28, 2026

AFFIRMED

Erica Lee Castillo appeals the trial court’s dismissal of her personal injury suit against the

City of San Antonio. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on Castillo’s failure to provide

timely notice of her claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted the plea.

On appeal, Castillo concedes she failed to provide formal notice but argues the City had

actual notice of her claims through various crash reports. Because the crash reports do not show

the City had actual notice, we affirm the dismissal of Castillo’s suit. 04-25-00122-CV

BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2023, San Antonio Police Detective Benjamin Garcia was covertly

surveilling a target from the side of a roadway. When Detective Garcia pulled onto the roadway to

improve his view, he struck Castillo’s passing vehicle.

The crash reports generated by SAPD noted that both vehicles sustained “very minor

damage.” The reports also indicated that Castillo and her son, who was a passenger in the car, told

officers they were uninjured.

Castillo subsequently sued the City for personal injuries sustained by her and her son as a

result of the crash. 1 The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction based on lack of notice under section

101.101 of the Texas Tort Claims Act (the TTCA). The City argued Castillo provided no notice to

the City and that the SAPD crash reports did not constitute actual notice. Castillo responded that

she provided timely written notice by mail and fax, and, alternatively, the SAPD crash reports

provided actual notice of the City’s fault. The City countered by pointing out that the Castillo’s

letter was sent to a mailing address corresponding to Via Metropolitan Transit—a separate entity

from the City—and filed affidavits from City employees stating that the fax number used by

Castillo was not owned by the City.

After a non-evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the plea and signed a final judgment

dismissing Castillo’s claims against the City. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

Castillo concedes in her briefing that she failed to provide timely notice of her claims to

the City. She instead relies upon the actual notice theory she urged in her response to the City’s

plea to the jurisdiction.

1 Castillo initially sued Detective Garcia and Enterprise Rental Company but later nonsuited them to pursue the City.

-2- 04-25-00122-CV

1 Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. 2 Tex. Health & Hum.

Servs. Comm’n v. Pope, 674 S.W.3d 273, 280 (Tex. 2023). A plea to the jurisdiction is a procedural

device for challenging subject-matter jurisdiction without reference to the merits of the underlying

claims. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 553–54 (Tex. 2000). There are two types

of pleas to the jurisdiction: (1) those that challenge pleadings and (2) those that challenge facts.

Jones v. Turner, 646 S.W.3d 319, 325 (Tex. 2022).

The City’s plea challenged the existence of jurisdictional facts and mirrors a motion for

summary judgment. In this context, the governmental entity has the initial burden to show that the

trial court lacks jurisdiction. Pope, 674 S.W.3d at 281. If the plea shows that the trial court lacks

jurisdiction as a matter of law, the nonmovant must then show that a genuine issue of material fact

exists as to jurisdiction to avoid dismissal. Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133

S.W.3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). If there is a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court then weighs

the evidence and determines whether it has jurisdiction. If the jurisdictional facts are intertwined

with the merits, the plea must be denied. Worsdale v. City of Killeen, 578 S.W.3d 57, 66 (Tex.

2019). On appeal, we defer to the trial court’s express or implied factual determinations that are

supported by the evidence. Id.

2 Notice Under the Texas Tort Claims Act

The TTCA waives governmental immunity from suit for certain tort claims, provided the

claimant gives notice of the claim within six months of the incident. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE § 101.101(a). This notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.034;

2 De novo review means we accord the trial court’s ruling no deference on appeal. Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 116 (Tex. 1998)

-3- 04-25-00122-CV

Worsdale, 578 S.W.3d at 77. However, a city charter may establish a shorter notice period. See

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.101(b) (ratifying and approving city charters that require

notice “within a charter period permitted by law”). The City of San Antonio’s charter requires

written notice of a personal injury claim within ninety days. SAN ANTONIO, TEX., CITY CHARTER,

art. XII, § 150 (2023).

Nonetheless, formal written notice is not required if the governmental entity “has actual

notice that death has occurred, that the claimant has received some injury, or that the claimant’s

property has been damaged.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.101(c) (emphasis added).

Castillo concedes she did not provide timely written notice in accordance with the charter;

therefore, jurisdiction turns on whether the City had actual notice of her claims.

2.1 Actual Notice

“Actual notice” under the TTCA means that the governmental entity has “subjective

awareness connecting alleged governmental conduct to causation of an alleged injury to person or

property in the manner ultimately asserted” in the lawsuit. Worsdale, 578 S.W.3d at 68.

Castillo relies on crash reports generated by SAPD to show actual notice. Specifically, she

points to a report stating that Detective Garcia “pulled … out into the main lanes of the roadway

striking [Castillo’s vehicle].” However, that same report states that both vehicles “sustained very

minor damage” and there “were no reported injuries.” The investigating officer for the incident,

Sergeant Kristopher Newman, wrote that he spoke to Castillo and her son, both of whom “stated

they did not sustain any injuries from the crash.” Other reports show entries by SAPD staff

repeating that “there were no injuries” and that Detective Garcia “did not see the vehicle in time

to avoid the crash.” One such report indicates that, in Sergeant Newman’s opinion, less than $1,000

in damage occurred to any one person’s property.

-4- 04-25-00122-CV

We agree the reports demonstrate the City’s subjective awareness of property damage to

Castillo’s vehicle. However, notice of property damage does not constitute notice of a personal

injury claim. See City of San Antonio v. Cervantes, 521 S.W.3d 390, 397 (Tex. App.—San Antonio

2017, no pet.) (rejecting argument that notice of property damage was sufficient to provide notice

of personal injury claim under the TTCA). Nothing in the reports indicates the City had subjective

awareness of personal injury in the manner ultimately alleged in Castillo’s petition. Cf. Worsdale,

578 S.W.3d at 77 (concluding “the City knew its investigators had concluded that the condition of

a road under its putative jurisdiction contributed to the deaths of two travelers” which was

“precisely what the relatives allege in the underlying lawsuit”).

Having considered the undisputed evidence provided by both parties, we conclude as a

matter of law that the City neither received formal written notice nor had actual notice under the

TTCA of Castillo’s personal injury claims. Because jurisdictional prerequisites to suit were not

satisfied, the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and properly granted the plea to the

jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment dismissing Castillo’s claims against the City is affirmed.

Velia J. Meza, Justice

-5-