The opinion
*499 HARVEY BROWN, Justice,
concurring.
This Court has already decided the issue presented in this case: whether the Tort Claims Act’s election-of-remedies provision bars a plaintiffs tort claims against a governmental unit when the plaintiff initially sued both the governmental unit and its employee. See City of Houston v. Esparza, 369 S.W.3d 238, 246-53 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, pet. filed). 1 I would follow this Court’s controlling precedent and affirm the trial court’s denial of the city’s plea to the jurisdiction.
I therefore concur in the Court’s opinion.
. Since its issuance, this Court has consistently followed Esparza. See, e.g., City of Houston v. Gwinn, No. 01-11-00524-CV, 2012 WL 1068591 , at *1-2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 29, 2012, no. pet. h.) (mem. op.) (following Esparza); Metro. Transit Auth. v. Light, No. 01-11-00747-CV, 2012 WL 252187 , at *1-2 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 26, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); City of Houston v. Tsaig, No. 01-11-00432-CV, 2012 WL 170606 , at *2-3 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 19, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Tex. Dep't of Aging & Disability Servs. v. Johnson, No. 01 — 11— 00526-CV, 2012 WL 27728 , at *2 (Tex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 5, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); City of Houston v. Marquez, No. 01-11-00493-CV, 2011 WL 6147772 , at *2-3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 8, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); City of Houston v. McClain, No. 01-11-00194-CV, 2011 WL 6015697 , at *2-3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 1, 2011, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (same); City of Houston v. San Miguel, No. 01-10-01071-CV, 2011 WL 5429048 , at *2-3 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 10, 2011, no. pet. h.) (mem. op.) (same). Several other courts of appeals have also followed Esparza. See, e.g., Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr. v. Villagran, 369 S.W.3d 523, 531 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Mar. 22, 2012, no. pet. h.); Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Deakyne, 371 S.W.3d 303, 307-11 (Tex.App.San Antonio 2012, no pet. h.).