Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Howard
452 S.W.3d 40
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Howard sued Helix for maintenance and cure under the Jones Act and general maritime law after a knee injury aboard MW QJpOOO.
- Howard moved to compel continuing maintenance and cure payments; the trial court granted retroactive and ongoing payments and medical charges.
- Helix appealed, arguing the order was an improper temporary injunction and not compliant with Rule 683; alternative request for mandamus.
- The court held the order was a mandatory injunction void for Rule 683 noncompliance, dissolved the order, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
- The appellate court concluded it had interlocutory jurisdiction to review the mandatory-injunction issue and directed immediate issuance of the mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order is a mandatory temporary injunction | Howard contends the remedy is a maritime-law pretrial remedy, not injunctive relief. | Helix argues the order directs conduct and is an improper temporary injunction. | Yes; the order is a mandatory injunction void for Rule 683 noncompliance. |
| Whether the appellate court has interlocutory jurisdiction | Howard asserts jurisdiction under the temporary injunction provision. | Helix agrees the order is a temporary injunction subject to review. | Yes; jurisdiction exists as the order is a temporary injunction. |
| Whether Rule 683 voids the order | Howard does not dispute Rule 683 noncompliance in the abstract. | Helix emphasizes noncompliance with Rule 683 makes the order void. | Yes; because the order failed Rule 683 requirements, it is void and must be dissolved. |
| Whether expedited maintenance-and-cure is a procedural vs. substantive feature of maritime law | Howard argues the remedy exists under general maritime law; the issue is unsettled by authority. | The majority treats expedited determination as procedural, not preemptive substantive relief. | Procedural; does not preempt Texas procedures; the order is void for Rule 683 noncompliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex.2002) (temporary injunction standards; preserve status quo)
- RP & R, Inc. v. Territo, 32 S.W.3d 396 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (injunctions; directing conduct constitutes mandatory injunction)
- InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.1986) (voidability of noncompliant temporary injunctions)
- Qwest Comm’ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334 (Tex.2000) (characterization of injunctions and monitoring; jurisdictional aspects)
- In re GlobalSantaFe Corp., 275 S.W.3d 477 (Tex.2008) (reverse-Erie doctrine; state procedure with federal substantive maritime law)
- Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621 (Tex.2012) (voidness of void judgments or orders; per curiam)