in Re: Texas Department of Transportation, 08-18-00132-CV

In 2014 Flores sued TxDOT for age discrimination (2014DCV1263); jury verdict and judgment (Feb 15, 2017) awarded damages and ordered TxDOT to reinstate Flores.
TxDOT filed a timely appeal (08-17-00047-CV) and by filing notice of appeal (and because the State is exempt from supersedeas bond requirements) the judgment was superseded, suspending enforcement.
Flores filed a charge of discrimination (May 23, 2017) claiming TxDOT failed to reinstate him, then filed a new suit (2018DCV1823) in 171st District Court on May 15, 2018 seeking enforcement of the reinstatement order.
TxDOT moved for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from proceeding in 2018DCV1823 and for a writ of injunction against Flores to stop him from prosecuting that suit while the appeal remains pending.
The Court of Appeals found Flores’s new suit was an effort to enforce the superseded judgment and thus interfered with the appellate court’s jurisdiction and TxDOT’s right to supersede.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution of a new suit to enforce a superseded judgment is permissible while appeal is pending	Flores: may pursue enforcement/relief in new suit based on failure to reinstate.	TxDOT: new suit is an attempt to enforce a superseded judgment and interferes with appellate jurisdiction.	Court: prosecution of 2018DCV1823 is prohibited as it enforces a superseded judgment; Issue sustained.
Whether an injunction should bar Flores from prosecuting the new suit while appeal is pending	Flores: not separately argued in opinion record.	TxDOT: court may enjoin Flores to protect its supersedeas rights and appellate jurisdiction.	Court: granted conditional writ of injunction prohibiting Flores from prosecuting 2018DCV1823 until the appeal concludes.

Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680 (Tex. 1989) (purpose and function of writ of prohibition to protect higher-court jurisdiction)
In re Cap Rock Energy Corp., 225 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005) (orig. proceeding) (use of writs to protect appellate jurisdiction)
In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam) (state agencies exempt from supersedeas bond requirement)
Ammex Warehouse Co. v. Archer, 381 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. 1964) (construction of statutory bond exemptions and contempt for disregarding supersedeas)
Builder’s Sand, Inc. v. Dalehite, 654 S.W.2d 858 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (orig. proceeding) (prohibiting trial court from hearing a second suit that would interfere with appellate jurisdiction)
In re City of Cresson, 245 S.W.3d 72 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (orig. proceeding) (appellate court may issue injunction to enforce supersedeas rights)