Jay Management Company, LLC v. Miriam Gonzalez ( 2024 )

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.
4