Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Brilliant Starts Learning Academy, L.L.C.

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 17, 2015·No. 03-15-00363-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

03-15-00363-CV

6936678

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/15/2015 3:29:50 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

CASE NO. 03-15-00363-CV

FILED IN

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

FOR THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/17/2015 4:17:50 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

Clerk

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY & PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Appellant,

v.

BRILLIANT STARTS LEARNING ACADEMY, L.L.C.

Appellee .

On Interlocutory Appeal from the 207TH District Court, Comal County, Texas; Cause No. C2015-0676B; before the Honorable Dib Waldrip

APPELLANT’S BRIEF and APPENDIX

KEN PAXTON Pat Tulinski Attorney General of Texas State Bar No. 20283485 Assistant Attorney General CHARLES E. ROY TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE First Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548

JAMES E. DAVIS Telephone: (512) 475-4170 Deputy Attorney General for Facsimile: (512) 320-0167 Civil Litigation pat.tulinski@texasattorneygeneral.gov Attorneys for Appellant

DAVID A. TALBOT, JR. Chief, Administrative Law Division

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL:

Appellant: Texas Department of Family & Protective Services (“DFPS”) Counsel for Appellant:

Pat Tulinski TBN 20283485 Assistant Attorney General Texas Attorney General’s Office Administrative Law Division 300 W. 15th Street, 10th Floor Austin, Texas 78711 Tel. 512-475-4170 Fax 512-320-0167 Email: pat.tulinski@texasattorneygeneral.gov

Appellee: Brilliant Starts Learning Academy, LLC (“Daycare”) Counsel for Appellee:

Gregory B. Cagle TBN 00790414 1602B State Street Houston, Texas 77007 Tel. 713-489-4789 Fax 713-489-4792 Email: gcagle@tmpalawyer.com

Scot R. Courtney TBN 00790515 P.O. Box 787 San Marcos, Texas 78677-0787 Tel. 512-392-9292 Fax 512-532-6766

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Identity of Parties and Counsel............................................................................................. ii Index of Authorities .............................................................................................................. iv I. Statement of the Case and Procedural History....................................................... 1 II. Request for Oral Argument ..................................................................................... 2 III. Jurisdictional Statement ............................................................................................ 2 IV. Standard of Review.................................................................................................... 2 V. Issue Presented .......................................................................................................... 4 VI. Statement of Facts and Argument .......................................................................... 4 VII. Conclusion and Prayer .............................................................................................. 8 VIII. Trap 9.4(I)(3) Certificate of Compliance ............................................................... 9 IX. Certificate of Service .............................................................................................. 10

iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) ............................................3

Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931, 935-36 (Tex. App. – Austin 1987, no writ) ....................................................................................................................3

Sonwalkar v. St. Luke’s Sugar Prop. Partnership, L.L.P., 394 S.W.3d 186, 197 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st Dist] 2012, no pet.) ...........................................................................6 Statutes

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4) (West 2014) ..............................2 Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 42.072(e) (West 2013) .................................................. passim Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 65.001 (West 2008) ............................................6

iv

TO THE HONORABLE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant Texas Department of Family & Protective Services (“DFPS”)

respectfully requests that this Court dissolve the Temporary Injunction issued by the District Court. I. Statement of the Case and Procedural History.

An employee of Brilliant Starts’ Learning Academy, LLC (“daycare”)

intentionally and routinely assaulted many children in care. RR Vol. 11 at 86 and Defendant’s Exhibit 1 2 (video excerpts of assaults). When DFPS became aware that 2 of the 3 owners of the daycare were indicted on felony charges of failure to report child abuse, DFPS issued an emergency order, closing the daycare for 30 days, while DFPS attempted to complete an investigation concerning the injuries. RR Vol. 1 at 91. On the daycare’s request, District Judge Dib Waldrip granted an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order, effectively voiding DFPS’s emergency closure order and allowing the daycare to continue operating. See Order Dated May 4, 2015. DFPS then moved to dissolve the Temporary Restraining Order, which Judge Waldrip heard and denied. RR Vol 1 at 165. Having completed its investigation and having clarified with Judge Waldrip that his restraining order was not intended to

1 Volume 1 is a court reporter’s record of the hearing on DFPS’s Motion to Dissolve TRO on May 11, 2015. All evidence from this hearing was subsequently admitted into evidence at the hearing on the Temporary Injunction (RR Vol 2 at 31) (May 15, 2015).

2 The Reporter’s Index to Exhibits erroneously reflects that this videotape was sealed by the trial court. However, the videotape was admitted into evidence without any conditions imposed by

prevent DFPS from taking further action concerning the daycare’s license, DFPS made its determination and revoked the daycare’s license. Judge Waldrip subsequently granted a second ex parte Temporary Restraining Order allowing the daycare to continue operating. See Order Dated May 13, 2015. This second ex parte TRO was entered even after counsel for DFPS had made a live appearance in court arguing the motion to dissolve. RR Vol. 2 at 5. Ultimately, after another hearing, Judge Waldrip granted the daycare’s request for a temporary injunction, allowing the daycare to continue operating – under specific conditions -- while it challenges, through the administrative process, the revocation of its license. DFPS is presently arguing to this Court that Judge Waldrip abused his discretion in granting the daycare’s request for a temporary injunction. II. Request for Oral Argument.

Appellant believes oral argument will aid the Court in its decision.

III. Jurisdictional Statement Under the authority of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(4)

(West 2014), this Court has jurisdiction to consider this interlocutory appeal from the District Court’s granting of a Temporary Injunction. IV. Standard of Review.

In an interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction, appellate review is strictly limited to evaluating whether there has been an abuse of discretion.

the trial court.

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (emphasis added). A trial court’s action is not an abuse of discretion if the court exercises its discretion within the correct legal parameters. Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc., 724 S.W.2d 931, 935-36 (Tex. App. – Austin 1987, no writ). Thus, if the trial judge exercises a power of choice given him by law, and does so in a way that is lawful in every respect, he has commits no legal error. Id. Conversely, if the trial judge exercises a power of choice clearly not given to him by law, he has committed legal error and abused his discretion. Id.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Brilliant Starts Learning Academy, L.L.C., (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Brilliant Starts Learning Academy, L.L.C. (Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Brilliant Starts Learning Academy, L.L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.
84 S.W.3d 198 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Landon v. Jean-Paul Budinger, Inc.
724 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Bishop v. Martin
740 S.W.2d 892 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Sonwalkar v. St. Luke's Sugar Land Partnership, L.L.P.
394 S.W.3d 186 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2012)