Conrad Construction Co. v. Freedmen's Town Preservation Coalition, 491 S.W.3d 12

Background

Freedmen’s Town (Fourth Ward, Houston) has brick streets laid by residents; area is on the National Register of Historic Places and a City historic district.
City contracted with Conrad Construction to replace water/sewer/drainage lines; the work requires removing, cleaning/replacing, and repaving bricks without preserving original locations/patterns.
Freedmen’s Town Preservation Coalition sued seeking declaratory relief and injunctions under the Texas Antiquities Code to stop Conrad and the City from removing/altering the bricks; a temporary restraining order was entered and later the trial court granted a temporary injunction against Conrad.
The City initially appeared and filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting governmental immunity, then the Coalition nonsuited the City so the injunction hearing could proceed solely against Conrad.
Conrad moved to dissolve the temporary injunction and filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing the City is a necessary/indispensable party under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 39; the trial court denied the plea and refused to join the City.
The court of appeals reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by granting the injunction without joinder of the City or a determination under Rule 39(b) that the City could not be joined.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City is a necessary party under Tex. R. Civ. P. 39	Coalition sought relief against those altering historic bricks; joinder of all parties needed for complete relief	Conrad: City is the real party in interest and nonsuit of City deprives court of power to grant injunction	Court: City is a necessary party; trial court abused discretion by not ordering joinder or determining under Rule 39(b) it could not be joined
Whether trial court should have proceeded after City nonsuit	Coalition proceeded against Conrad alone to preserve injunction hearing	Conrad: absent City, complete relief impossible because City controls permits and could hire another contractor	Court: without City, complete relief cannot be afforded; joinder required or a Rule 39(b) determination made
Whether temporary injunction standard was met on the record	Coalition presented harms to historic resource and requested preservation pending trial	Conrad challenged jurisdiction and sufficiency given City’s role; also raised defenses about permit requirements and ownership	Court did not decide merits of injunction; reversed because procedural joinder error required remand for re-evaluation with proper parties
Effect of governmental immunity plea and prior City participation	Coalition argued immunity defense doesn’t eliminate need for joinder	Conrad argued City’s nonsuit and immunity issues meant court lacked jurisdiction	Court: immunity/plea to jurisdiction is a separate issue; record insufficient to resolve it — Rule 39 determination required first

Key Cases Cited

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (temporary injunction standards)
Cameron Int’l Corp. v. Guillory, 445 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (standard of review for temporary injunctions)
In re Tex. Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. 2002) (applicant’s burden of production for injunctive relief)
Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1993) (injunction preserves status quo pending trial)
Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (appellate review limited to validity of injunction order)
INEOS Grp. Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (abuse of discretion standard)
Longoria v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 255 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008) (trial court discretion on joinder under Rule 39)
Miller v. Gann, 822 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) (Rule 39(b) discussion on parties who cannot be joined)
Kodiak Res., Inc. v. Smith, 361 S.W.3d 246 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2012) (reversal/remand where joinder of nonparties needed for just adjudication)
City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) (limitations on governmental immunity in statutory claims)