Jay Management Company, LLC v. Miriam Gonzalez

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 16, 2024
• Docket: 01-23-00647-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued July 16, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-23-00647-CV ——————————— JAY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Appellant V. PEDRO APARICIO BARAJAS, MARIA FIGUEROA, ISRAEL BRIONES MENDEZ, DANIEL MARTINEZ, ROSELIA BARAJAS, FIDELIA RAMIREZ, OSCAR RAMIREZ, MA ISABEL HERNANDEZ, MARIA NARES, ALEXANDER GUERRA, LAURA GARCIA, JOSE LUIS SOTELO, AND AMARIS ARGUETA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 234th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2023-28694

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from the trial court’s entry of a temporary injunction. The

temporary injunction is void because it did not set a date for trial on the merits. Accordingly, we dissolve the injunction, and we remand the case to the trial court

for further proceedings.

Background

In the underlying case, a group of homeowners (“surface owners”) sued

appellant Jay Management Company, LLC (“Jay Management”), who is the

mineral lease holder for their properties. The surface owners alleged that Jay

Management had contaminated the surface and subsurface water with oil due to

their industrial activities. The surface owners sought damages and an injunction

against certain activities. Appellees filed a petition in intervention alleging that Jay

Management had blocked their access to a private road to which they had an

easement. The road and intervenors’ homes are in Liberty County, and the trial

court severed the intervenors’ claims and transferred them to Liberty County. Jay

Management contends that this interlocutory appeal is not moot because the

challenged temporary injunction remains in effect.

The temporary injunction states:

....

2. The Clerk is ORDERED to issue notice to Jay Management Company LLC, Defendant, that a trial on the merits is set for ___________, at _______ on [intervenors’] application for permanent injunction.

3. Jay Management Company LLC, Defendant, is ORDERED to appear at that time for a full trial on the merits to show cause, if

2 any cause exists, why this temporary injunction order should not be made a permanent injunction.

Analysis

Whether to grant a temporary injunction that preserves the status quo for

trial is within the discretion of the trial court. See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84

S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). The form of the injunction itself, however, must

strictly comply with Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Qwest

Commc’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000); see InterFirst

Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986)

(stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly

followed). Rule 683 states: “Every order granting a temporary injunction shall

include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate

relief sought.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 683. This requirement is mandatory, and an order

granting a temporary injunction that fails to set the cause for trial on the merits “is

subject to being declared void and dissolved.” Qwest Commc’ns Corp., 24 S.W.3d

at 337; Hegar v. Zertuche Constr., LLC, No. 03-19-00238-CV, 2021 WL 219302,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 22, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dissolving temporary

injunction order that did not set cause for trial on merits because it was void); State

Bd. for Educator Certification v. Montalvo, No. 03-12-00723-CV, 2013 WL

3 1405883, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 3, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that

temporary injunction order that does not include trial setting is void).

The order granting a temporary injunction in this case did not set the cause

for trial on the merits, instead leaving blank the details in that section of the order.

Because the order does not set the cause for trial on the merits, it does not comply

with Rule 683, and we hold that the order is void. Because this holding is

dispositive, we do not need to reach any other issues on appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

47.1.

Conclusion

We declare the temporary injunction void. We dissolve the temporary

injunction, and we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Peter Kelly Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and Goodman.