Message
×
loading..

Michael J. DeLitta And DeLCom Properties, LLC v. Nancy Schaefer ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                      ACCEPTED
    03-15-00085-CV
    4511551
    THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
    CAUSE NO. 03-15-00085-CV                                        AUSTIN, TEXAS
    3/16/2015 1:38:15 PM
    JEFFREY D. KYLE
    CLERK
    In the Third Court of Appeals
    Austin, Texas                     FILED IN
    3rd COURT OF APPEALS
    AUSTIN, TEXAS
    3/16/2015 1:38:15 PM
    MICHAEL J. DELITTA & DELCOM     PROPERTIES,  LLC
    JEFFREY D. KYLE
    Appellants                     Clerk
    v.
    NANCY SCHAEFER
    Appellee
    Appeal from the 201st Judicial District Court
    Travis County, Texas; Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003516
    APPELLANTS’ BRIEF
    (Oral Argument Requested)
    DRUCKER | HOPKINS LLP
    Douglas R. Drucker
    Texas Bar No. 0
    6136100 Kirby D
    . Hopkins
    Texas Bar No. 24034488
    21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300
    The Woodlands, Texas 77380
    281.362.2863 (phone)
    855.558.1745 (fax)
    drucker@druckerhopkins.com (email)
    hopkins@druckerhopkins.com (email)
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS
    MICHAEL J. DELITTA AND
    DELCOM PROPERTIES, LLC
    Identity of Parties and Counsel
    Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, Appellants submit
    the following designation of parties and counsel, and trial court:
    APPELLANTS:                       Michael J. DeLitta
    DelCom Properties, LLC
    (Defendants in Underlying Suit)
    APPELLANTS’ COUNSEL:              Douglas R. Drucker
    Kirby D. Hopkins
    Drucker | Hopkins LLP
    21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300
    The Woodlands, Texas 77380
    APPELLEE:                         Nancy Schaefer
    (Plaintiff in Underlying Suit)
    APPELLEE’S COUNSEL:               Lisa Bowlin Hobbs
    Kurt Kuhn
    Kuhn Hobbs PLLC
    3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310
    Austin, Texas 78731
    Howard F. (Sam) Carter
    The Carter Law Firm
    14185 Dallas Parkway
    Suite 1275
    Dallas, Texas 75254
    Donald Taylor
    Taylor Dunham and Rodriguez, LLP
    301 Congress Avenue
    Suite 1050
    Austin, Texas 78701
    1
    ADDITIONAL PARTIES:   Jeff Compton
    (Provisional Member and Limited-
    Receiver of Certain Defendants)
    Axiom Medical Consulting, LLC,
    Axiom Professionals, LLC, and
    Axiom Properties, LLC
    ADDITIONAL PARTIES’   For Provisional Member Jeff Compton
    COUNSEL:              and Axiom entities:
    Eric J. Taube
    Hohmann, Taube & Summers, LLP
    100 Congress Avenue
    18th Floor
    Austin, Texas 78701
    TRIAL COURT:          Honorable Amy Clark Meachum
    201st Judicial District Court
    Travis County, Texas
    2
    Table of Contents
    Identity of Parties and Counsel ..................................................................................1
    Table of Contents .......................................................................................................3
    Table of Authorities ...................................................................................................4
    Statement of the Case.................................................................................................6
    Statement regarding Oral Argument ..........................................................................7
    Issues Presented .........................................................................................................8
    First Issue: Did the Trial Court Err in Refusing to Declare the October 29, 2013
    Temporary Injunction Void? ..................................................................................8
    Second Issue: Did the Trial Court Err in Refusing to Dissolve the October 29, 2013
    Temporary Injunction?............................................................................................8
    Statement of Facts ......................................................................................................9
    Summary of the Argument.......................................................................................11
    Argument..................................................................................................................12
    The trial court erred in denying Appellants’ motion to dissolve and to
    declare void the temporary injunction. ............................................................12
    1. The temporary injunction is void for two reasons. .....................................12
    2. And it is irrelevant whether the temporary injunction was “agreed” to. ...15
    Conclusion ...............................................................................................................15
    Prayer .......................................................................................................................16
    Certificate of Compliance ........................................................................................17
    Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................18
    Appendix ..................................................................................................................19
    3
    Table of Authorities
    Cases
    Page(s)
    Bankler v. Vale,
    
    75 S.W.3d 29
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.)…………………...............12
    Conlin v. Haun,
    
    419 S.W.3d 682
    (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.).................................15
    Emex Holdings LLC v. Naim,
    
    2010 WL 2163139
    (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.)...………………….14
    EOG Res., Inc. v. Gutierrez,
    
    75 S.W.3d 50
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.)………….………………..14
    Fasken v. Darby,
    
    901 S.W.2d 591
    (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ)………………….…………..13
    Gray Wireline Service, Inc. v. Cavanna,
    
    374 S.W.3d 464
    , 472 (Tex. App.--Waco 2011, no pet.)............................................16
    Indep. Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Collins,
    
    261 S.W.3d 792
    , 795 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.) ……………….…………14
    InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co.,
    
    715 S.W.2d 640
    (Tex. 1986) (per curiam)……………….……………………13, 15
    Internat’l Broth. of Elec. Workers Local Un. 479 v. Becon Constr. Co., Inc.,
    
    104 S.W.3d 239
    (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2003, no pet.)..……………..……….12, 13
    Kotz v. Imperial Capital Bank,
    
    319 S.W.3d 54
    (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.)……………….................13
    Poole v. U.S. Money Reserve, Inc.,
    No. 09-08-137CV, 
    2008 WL 4735602
    , *9-13
    (Tex. App.—Beaumont, Oct. 30, 2008, no pet.) (memo. op.)……………………..15
    4
    Qwest Comms. Corp. v. AT&T Corp.,
    
    24 S.W.3d 334
    (Tex. 2000) (per curiam)….……….…….………………………...13
    State v. Cook United, Inc.,
    
    464 S.W.2d 105
    (Tex. 1971)….………………………………….………………..12
    Stoner v. Thompson,
    
    553 S.W.2d 150
    (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
    ………………………………………………………………….…………………13
    Rules
    Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683……..…………………………………..Passim
    5
    Statement of the Case
    This suit is, essentially, a dispute over the ownership and control of
    defendants’ Axiom Medical Consulting, LLC, Axiom Properties, LLC, and
    Axiom Professionals LLC.
    On October 29, 2013, the parties agreed to a temporary injunction,
    which the trial court entered. [Appendix, Exhibit A]
    On October 22, 2014, Appellants filed a motion to dissolve and to
    declare void that temporary injunction. [Appendix, Exhibit B.]
    On January 16, 2015, the trial court entered an order denying the
    Appellants’ motion. [Appendix, Exhibit C.]
    On February 5, Appellants timely appealed the trial court’s January 16,
    2015 order.
    6
    Statement regarding Oral Argument
    Appellants believe that oral argument should be permitted, given the
    relative complexity of the case, related proceedings, and issues presented.
    Specifically, the Court’s decision process would be aided by oral
    argument by (among other things):
     providing further factual or procedural background not
    adequately addressed in the briefing;
     responding to concerns over the proper use and application of
    certain legal principles; and
     answering prudential questions concerning the future impact of
    the Court’s ruling.
    7
    Issues Presented
    First Issue: Did the Trial Court Err in Refusing to Declare the
    October 29, 2013 Temporary Injunction Void?
    Second Issue: Did the Trial Court Err in Refusing to Dissolve the
    October 29, 2013 Temporary Injunction?
    8
    Statement of Facts
    2013:
    On October 29, 2013, Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to a
    temporary injunction order (the “temporary injunction”) that the trial court
    signed. [Appendix, Exhibit A.]
    On its face, the temporary injunction gave no reason for its issuance
    and set a trial date of April 7, 2014. 
    Id. The temporary
    injunction order failed
    to identify any other possible date for its expiration, or provide any way for
    its terms to be renewed. 
    Id. 2014: On
    October 22, 2014, Appellants filed a motion to declare void and to
    dissolve the temporary injunction. [Appendix, Exhibit B.]
    (In 2014, Appellants had two cases in this Court. First, this Court
    addressed whether it should provide mandamus relief for a trial court’s
    refusal to declare a temporary injunction void1 (not an issue here, as
    Appellants are not seeking mandamus relief). Second, this Court addressed
    whether it had jurisdiction to declare a temporary injunction void absent a
    1See In re DeLitta et al., Cause No. 03-14-00423-CV, 
    2014 WL 3414187
    (Tex. App.-Austin July 11, 2014,
    orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
    9
    relevant motion, instead of a responsive pleading2 (not an issue here, as
    Appellants filed a motion).)
    2015:
    On January 16, 2015, the trial court denied the motion by order.
    [Appendix, Exhibit C.]
    Appellants timely filed their accelerated notice of appeal.
    2 See DeLitta v. Schaefer, Cause No. 03-14-00426-CV (Tex. App.—Austin). Defendants’ motion for
    rehearing and for en banc reconsideration in that case is still pending.
    10
    Summary of the Argument
    Again and again, the Texas Supreme Court has emphasized that the
    requirements of Rule 683 are “mandatory.” That court has, accordingly,
    repeatedly held that injunctions not meeting those requirements are “void.”
    Moreover, neither the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Texas
    Supreme Court have made any exceptions for “agreed” temporary
    injunctions. Indeed, other appellate courts have concluded—following the
    high court’s clear language—that even “agreed” temporary injunctions must
    meet these requirements, or be declared void.
    As such, the temporary injunction here—which does not meet the
    requirements of Rule 683, for two independent reasons—is void. The trial
    court therefore erred in denying Appellants’ motion to declare the temporary
    injunction void and to dissolve it.
    11
    Argument
    The trial court erred in denying Appellants’ motion to dissolve
    and to declare void the temporary injunction.
    1. The temporary injunction is and was void for two reasons.
    First, the temporary injunction fails to provide legally-sufficient
    reasons for its issuance.
    “Every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall
    set forth the reasons for its issuance.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 683 (emphasis
    added). In other words, while the trial court need not give its reasons for
    believing the applicant, “it is necessary to give the reasons why the injury
    will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered.” State v. Cook
    United, Inc., 
    464 S.W.2d 105
    , 106 (Tex. 1971 (emphasis added). Giving the
    reasons why the injury will be suffered includes “defining the injury and
    describing why it is irreparable.” Bankler v. Vale, 
    75 S.W.3d 29
    , 33 (Tex.
    App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.) (emphasis added).
    Moreover, the reasons provided by the trial court in the order of
    injunction “must be specific and legally sufficient, and not mere
    conclusory statements.” See Internat’l Broth. of Elec. Workers Local Un.
    12
    479 v. Becon Constr. Co., Inc., 
    104 S.W.3d 239
    , 244 (Tex. App.—Beaumont
    2003, no pet.) (emphasis added).3
    An injunction that fails to follow this requirement of Rule 683 is void
    and not valid. See Qwest Comms. Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 
    24 S.W.3d 334
    , 337
    (Tex. 2000) (per curiam) (noting that the procedural requirements of Rule
    683 “are mandatory, and an order granting a temporary injunction that
    does not meet them is subject to being declared void and dissolved.”)
    (emphasis added); InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 
    715 S.W.2d 640
    , 641 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam) (declaring temporary injunction
    void where it failed to satisfy requirements of Rule 683, as “[t]he
    requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly
    followed.”) (emphasis added); see also Fasken v. Darby, 
    901 S.W.2d 591
    ,
    593 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ) (vacating order and dissolving
    temporary injunction for failing to comply with Rule 683).
    Here, the temporary injunction gives no reason—much less a legally
    sufficient one—for its issuance. See Appendix, Exhibit A. It is therefore void.
    3 See also, e.g., Stoner v. Thompson, 
    553 S.W.2d 150
    , 151 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
    1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (“The conclusion that the situation is harmful is not a reason why injury
    will be suffered if the interlocutory relief is not ordered.”); Kotz v. Imperial Capital Bank, 
    319 S.W.3d 54
    , 57 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2010, no pet.) (“At most, [] language [that Kotz will
    “suffer irreparable injury” to certain assets] characterizes by what means harm will occur unless
    Kotz is enjoined from taking possession and use of the subject property—but does not state or
    explain the reasons why irreparable injury will result absent an injunction.”).
    13
    And a “trial court abuses its discretion by issuing a temporary injunction
    order that does not comply with the requirements of rule 683.” Indep.
    Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Collins, 
    261 S.W.3d 792
    , 795 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008,
    no pet.).
    Second, the temporary injunction expired, and no longer carries an
    effective trial date.
    A temporary injunction must include an order setting the case for a
    trial on the merits. TEX. R. CIV. P. 683. This rule works “to protect the parties
    from being subject to a temporary injunction made permanent by a court's
    failure to set the matter for a final determination on the merits.” See EOG
    Res., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 
    75 S.W.3d 50
    , 53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no
    pet.); see also Emex Holdings LLC v. Naim, No. 13-09-591-CV, 
    2010 WL 2163139
    , *1-2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2010, no pet.). Right now, the
    appellants are subject to what amounts to a permanent injunction, even
    though they only agreed to terms through April 7, 2014 (e.g., paying
    appellee’s salary).
    Rule 683 places the onus on the party requesting the injunctive relief
    to renew the injunction if the trial is delayed beyond the trial date set in the
    order. See Emex Holdings LLC, 
    2010 WL 2163139
    at *2.
    14
    When a temporary injunction fails to comply with Rule 683’s
    procedural requirements, it is void. See, e.g., 
    InterFirst, 715 S.W.2d at 641
    .
    Here, the temporary injunction, by its own terms, was set to expire on
    April 7, 2014—the initial trial date. See Appendix, Exhibit A. No party ever
    moved to extend the temporary injunction, and the temporary injunction
    provides no method or mechanism for extending its terms beyond that time.
    In short, the temporary injunction expired then—and is now therefore void.
    2. And it is irrelevant whether the temporary injunction was “agreed” to.
    Neither Rule 683 nor the Texas Supreme Court has ever made any
    exception to these principles for “agreed” temporary injunctions.
    Moreover, other appellate courts have correctly followed these
    principles in concluding that Rule 683’s mandatory requirements are, in
    fact, mandatory—and cannot be waived. See, e.g., Conlin v. Haun, 419
    S.W.3d. 682, 686-87 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (where
    parties agreed to temporary injunction—and then sought appellate review
    more than four years later—rejecting estoppel argument and declaring
    injunction void for failing to comply with Rule 683); Poole v. U.S. Money
    Reserve, Inc., No. 09-08-137CV, 
    2008 WL 4735602
    , *9-13 (Tex. App.—
    Beaumont, Oct. 30, 2008, no pet.) (memo. op.).
    15
    In sum, a “void order has no force or effect and confers no rights; it is
    a mere nullity.” Gray Wireline Service, 
    Inc., 374 S.W.3d at 472
    (emphasis
    added) (reversing trial court, dissolving temporary injunction, and holding
    void-ness cannot be waived).
    Conclusion
    The trial court erred in refusing to declare the temporary injunction
    void and in refusing to dissolve it. The temporary injunction does comply
    with Rule 683’s requirement--in that the temporary injunction never
    included required reasons and currently has no effective trial date (as the
    specified—April 7, 2014—date has passed). And the Texas Supreme Court
    has made clear that such a temporary injunction is void. Moreover, no
    exception exists for “agreed” injunctions.
    No harm will occur as a result of reversal by the appellate court here,
    as there is a court-appointed Receiver in place and appellee can re-apply for
    a temporary injunction that complies with Rule 683.
    Prayer
    Appellants DelCom Properties, LLC and Michael J. DeLitta
    respectfully requests that this Court:
    16
    (a)   Reverse the trial court’s January 16, 2015 order denying
    Appellants’ motion to dissolve and to declare void the October
    29, 2013 temporary injunction; and
    (b)   reverse, vacate, dissolve, and declare void the trial court’s
    October 29, 2013 temporary injunction; and
    (c)   grant them all other and further relief to which they may be
    entitled.
    Respectfully submitted,
    DRUCKER | HOPKINS LLP
    /s/ Douglas R. Drucker
    Douglas R. Drucker
    Texas Bar No. 0
    6136100 Kirby D
    . Hopkins
    Texas Bar No. 24034488
    21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300
    The Woodlands, Texas 77380
    281.362.2863 (phone)
    855.558.1745 (fax)
    drucker@druckerhopkins.com (email)
    hopkins@druckerhopkins.com (email)
    ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS
    MICHAEL J. DELITTA &
    DELCOM PROPERTIES, LLC
    17
    Certificate of Compliance
    Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4, the undersigned
    certifies that the number of words in this computer-generated document
    (according to the Word program’s word count function)—excluding the
    captions, identity of parties and counsel, statement regarding oral argument,
    table of contents, index of authorities, statement of the case, statement of
    issues presented, signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of
    compliance, and appendix—is 1,454 (text) and 133 (footnotes), for a total of
    1,597.
    Date: March 16, 2015                /s/ Kirby Hopkins
    Kirby Hopkins
    18
    Certificate of Service
    Per Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6 and 9.5, I certify that I have
    served this document on all other parties on March 16, 2015 as follows:
    Howard F. Carter                              via Electronic-filing
    The Carter Law Firm
    14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1275
    Dallas, Texas 75254
    COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SHAEFER
    Donald Taylor                                 via Electronic-filing
    Taylor Dunham & Rodriguez, LLP
    301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1050
    Austin, Texas 78701
    COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SHAEFER
    Lisa Bowlin Hobbs                             via Electronic-filing
    Kurt Kuhn
    Kuhn Hobbs PLLC
    3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310
    Austin, Texas 78731
    COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SHAEFER
    Eric J. Taube                           via Electronic-filing
    Hohmann, Taube & Summers LLP
    100 Congress Avenue
    18th Floor
    Austin, Texas 78701
    COUNSEL FOR PROVISIONAL MEMBER JEFF COMPTON OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS,
    AND OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
    Date: March 16, 2015               /s/ Kirby Hopkins
    Kirby Hopkins
    19
    Appendix
    The following constitutes the Appendix as required by Texas Rules of
    Appellate Procedure 38.1(k):
    A   Agreed Temporary Injunction of October 29, 2013
    B   Motion to Dissolve and Declare Void Temporary
    Injunction of October 22, 2014
    C   January 16, 2015 Trial Court Order Denying Appellants’
    Motion
    20
    A
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    B
    377
    378
    379
    380
    381
    382
    383
    384
    385
    386
    387
    388
    389
    390
    391
    392
    393
    394
    395
    C
    468
    469
    470