Lagos v. Plano Economic Development Board, Inc.
378 S.W.3d 647
Tex. App.2012Background
- Lagos, a Plano resident, sought to review the Corporation’s documents and challenged transparency and spending; his conduct escalated during August 2009 visits.
- On August 20, 2009, Lagos reviewed agendas and minutes, requested an additional document, and became confrontational when told to file an Open Records Request.
- Lagos called Mayor Dyer during the visit, allegedly threatening or implying a grenade in the board room; Mayor reportedly did not perceive a threat.
- The Corporation treated Lagos’s behavior as threatening, reporting it to police and seeking protective relief.
- On August 27, 2009, appellees filed suit to enjoin Lagos within 500 feet of the office and staff; a temporary injunction followed, then a summary-judgment order granting a permanent injunction.
- The permanent injunction (paragraphs 1-5) restricted Lagos’s proximity to the office and specific individuals; Lagos challenged paragraphs 3-5 as overbroad and unsupported by imminent-harm evidence; the court reversed as to 3-5 and dissolved those provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether paras. 3–5 satisfy injunctive-requirement standards | Lagos argues no imminent harm and insufficient evidence | Appellees show staff safety concerns and pattern of harassment | Paras. 3–5 overbroad; abuse of discretion; dissolved |
| Whether the injunction’s scope is overbroad by restricting attendance at meetings | Injunction forbids lawful attendance when officials present | Language is permissible to protect officials | Overbroad; dissolved; 3–5 invalidated |
Key Cases Cited
- Jim Rutherford Invs., Inc. v. Terramar Beach Cmty. Ass’n, 25 S.W.3d 845 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (imminent-harm standard for injunctions; irreparable injury requirement)
- Martinez v. Tex. Employment Comm’n, 545 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.Civ. App.-El Paso 1976) (injunctions require imminent threat and proper relief scope)
- Webb v. Glenbrook Owners Ass’n, Inc., 298 S.W.3d 374 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2009) (injunctions must be specific and not enjoin lawful activities; overbreadth concern)
- Computek Computer & Office Supplies, Inc. v. Walton, 156 S.W.3d 217 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005) (injunctions must be narrowly tailored to restrain specific wrongful conduct)
- Brammer v. KB Home Lone Star, L.P., 114 S.W.3d 101 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003) (broad injunctions may burden lawful activity; need precise relief)
- Glattly v. Air Starter Components, Inc., 332 S.W.3d 620 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010) (standard for reviewing permanent injunctions on appeal)