named as defendants and because Nieto did not file a certificate of review. These assertions misinterpret the concept of immunity. A person or entity is not “immune” from suit merely because that person or entity asserts a successful • affirmative defense. See Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 167 n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 1827, 118 L.Ed.2d 504 (1992) (noting that while a defense entitles an individual to some protection from liability, he is not entitled to immunity from suit). Rather, immunity from suit means that a plaintiff cannot legally file a lawsuit naming that person or entity as a defendant. See § 24-10-108, 7 C.R.S. (1999) (providing that sovereign immunity shall be a bar to any action against a public entity); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Immunity means that the person or entity is
recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit holding that qualified immunity is not merely immunity from damages but also immunity from suit recognizing that an entitlement not to stand trial or face other burdens of litigation is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability holding bjecause immunity from liability constitutes an affirmative defense not a jurisdictional bar only immunity from suit is properly before us today holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional