courts have provided an illustrative list, not an exhaustive list. It must be remembered that governmental immunity “also protects a governmental unit from lawsuits that seek to control the unit’s lawful actions by a final judgment made by a court of law.” City of Houston v. Houston Firefighters’ Relief & Retirement Fund, 196 S.W.3d 271, 277 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Multi-County conceded at oral argument that the City and District are entitled to governmental immunity under City of El Paso v. Heinrich, but asked that we remand the case to allow Multi-County to assert the same causes of action against City and District officials, rather than against the governmental entities themselves. See Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 839-40 (Tex.2007) (<HOLDING>). But Multi-County’s complaint is that the
holding that a plaintiff who loses a plea to the jurisdiction based on immunity is entitled to remand if the jurisdictional pleading defect can be cured by amendment holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect holding that if the states criminal complaint against defendant had a jurisdictional defect the prosecution had the right to attempt to correct the defect and a motion to dismiss is one method of doing this holding that lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent holding statute of limitations is not jurisdictional and can be waived by a voluntary plea of guilty