Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church and Christian Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church v. the Houston Housing Authority
01-15-00790-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 16, 2015Background
- Latter Day Deliverance Revival Church sued Houston Housing Authority (HHA) under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to prevent HHA from condemning church property for a targeted public-housing project.
- Latter Day moved for a temporary injunction; the trial court denied that motion on Sept. 1, 2015, finding Latter Day failed to show a substantial burden on religious exercise.
- Latter Day filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the temporary injunction on Sept. 4, 2015.
- On Sept. 11, 2015, the trial court granted HHA’s plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the suit on jurisdictional grounds (county court jurisdiction/60-day RFRA notice issues).
- Appellants appealed the jurisdictional dismissal on Sept. 18, 2015; the two appeals were consolidated and appellants plan to brief both issues.
- HHA moved to dismiss the interlocutory appeal of the temporary-injunction denial as moot, arguing that final disposition moots temporary-injunction appeals; appellants oppose, arguing no final merits judgment was entered and the jurisdictional dismissal does not render the temporary-injunction appeal moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interlocutory appeal of the denial of a temporary injunction is moot after the trial court granted a plea to the jurisdiction | The temporary-injunction appeal is not moot because the trial court did not enter a final merits judgment; if the jurisdictional dismissal is reversed, the injunction ruling remains reviewable | The appeal is moot because a final disposition should render review of an earlier temporary-injunction order unnecessary | Court urged to deny dismissal: precedent that moots injunction appeals applies only after a final merits judgment; jurisdictional dismissal is not a merits disposition, so appeal is not moot |
| Whether the mootness rule for temporary-injunction appeals should extend to dismissals based on jurisdictional pleas | Mootness rule aims to avoid premature or duplicative merits review; it should not apply when dismissal is non-merits and may be reversible | Dismissal of interlocutory appeal avoids piecemeal appellate review and follows precedent where final judgments rendered appeals moot | Court should distinguish merits final judgments from jurisdictional dismissals; if jurisdictional dismissal is reversed, injunction appeal can proceed |
| Whether dismissal now would waste judicial and party resources by requiring re-litigation of the injunction issue on remand | If dismissed as moot and the jurisdictional dismissal is later reversed, parties and court would have to repeat injunction proceedings | Mootness dismissal is routine when merits final judgment exists; same logic should apply here | Court should retain the injunction appeal to avoid duplication if jurisdictional ruling is reversed |
| Whether precedent supports retaining the injunction appeal when trial court dismissed on non-merits grounds | Cases (e.g., Harris v. Moore) allowed revival of injunction appeal when dismissal was procedurally flawed or non-final | Defendant cites multiple cases dismissing injunction appeals as moot after final merits judgments | Precedent cited by plaintiff distinguishes final-judgment dismissals from non-merits dismissals; appellate review of injunction can proceed where dismissal is not a final merits adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Isuani v. Manske-Sheffield Radiology Grp., P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1991) (explains dismissal of temporary-injunction appeals is proper after final judgment to avoid premature merits review)
- Iranian Muslim Org. v. City of San Antonio, 615 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. 1981) (discusses risk of using injunction appeals to obtain advance merits rulings)
- Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (describes plea to the jurisdiction as dilatory and not a merits determination)
- Harris v. Moore, 912 S.W.2d 860 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995) (holds appellate court may revive and decide injunction appeal when trial court dismissal was procedurally erroneous/nonfinal)
- Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (standard of appellate review for temporary-injunction denials is abuse of discretion)