Intercontinental Terminals Co. v. Vopak North America, Inc.
354 S.W.3d 887
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- ITC and Vopak operate adjacent Deer Park facilities connected by track 805 under a lead trackage agreement.
- Track 805 connects ITC and Vopak to PTRA’s main rail line; ITC claims control so as not to interfere with its use.
- Historically, ITC, Vopak, and Clear Harbors shared track 805 with variable daily car counts.
- In 2010 Vopak planned unit trains for ethanol, prompting ITC to impose a 35-car-per-day limit (incoming/outgoing).
- PTRA proceedings led to a trial court temporary injunction setting a 70-car-per-day limit for Vopak.
- ITC challenges the injunction as altering the status quo; the trial court affirmed preserving the status quo was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of status quo | ITC argues injunction changes the status quo by capping use. | Vopak contends status quo is the forty-year practice of shared use. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; status quo preserved. |
| Probable, imminent, irreparable harm | Vopak failed to show imminent, irreparable harm. | Vopak showed ongoing disruption and costs; embargo and backlogs evidenced harm. | Court found probabl e, imminent, irreparable harm to Vopak. |
| Probable right to recover | Vopak lacks evidence of right to relief on merits; no express finding required. | Vopak offered evidence supporting a declaratory judgment right to use track 805. | Vopak showed probable right to recover; injunction upheld without explicit finding in order. |
| Rule 683 compliance | Strike-through of probable right language indicates lack of findings. | Rule 683 requires reasons for issuance, not a finding on probable right. | Rule 683 not requiring explicit probable-right finding; error not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (probable right of recovery is not final relief; injury must be shown)
- In re Texas Natural Resources Conservation Comm'n, 85 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. 2002) (temporary injunction standards; burden of production requires evidence of elements)
- Camp v. Shannon, 162 Tex. 515, 348 S.W.2d 517 (Tex. 1961) (injunction standards; burden of production and prima facie showing)
- Dallas Anesthesiology Assocs., P.A. v. Tex. Anesthesia Group, P.A., 190 S.W.3d 891 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (standard for temporary injunction and evidentiary burden)
- Getz v. Boston Sea Party of Houston, Inc., 573 S.W.2d 836 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1978) (status quo defined as last actual peaceable non-contested status)
- Glattly v. Air Starter Components, Inc., 332 S.W.3d 620 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (injunctions; understanding of probable right of recovery)
- Anderson Oaks (Phase I) Ltd. P'ship v. Anderson Mill Oaks, Ltd., 734 S.W.2d 42 (Tex. App.-Austin 1987) (probable right to recovery and temporary injunction scope)
- Frequent Flyer Depot, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009) (irreparable harm for loss of goodwill and intangible injuries)