691 S.W.3d 493
Tex.2024Background
- Petitioners (Bienati, Pham, Lacayo, Ruzo) are board members of Holy Kombucha; Cloister Holdings, LLC is another stakeholder.
- Board quorum per the shareholders’ agreement required a Cloister nominee, a Montgomery Capital nominee, and either Bienati or Pham.
- Cloister accused Bienati and Pham of financial mismanagement; Cloister refused to participate in board meetings, stalling company activity.
- Bienati, Pham, and the Montgomery nominee amended the quorum requirement to exclude Cloister, after which Cloister sued and obtained a temporary injunction preserving its quorum rights.
- The enjoined board members appealed the injunction; the trial court delayed trial pending the appeal, and the court of appeals dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument (Bienati) | Respondent’s Argument (Cloister) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does trial delay during temporary injunction appeal defeat appellate jurisdiction? | Delay does not eliminate appellate jurisdiction. | Trial delay means any appeal ruling is advisory; no jurisdiction. | Court of appeals erred; appellate courts retain jurisdiction. |
| Is an appeal of a temporary injunction advisory if trial is delayed? | No, because the injunction presents a current, live controversy. | Yes, because - per court of appeals - it does not resolve the merits. | Not advisory: an actual controversy binds the parties until final judgment. |
| Must trial proceed always during a temporary injunction appeal? | No, rule does not make trial progress a jurisdictional bar. | Yes; judicial economy and Rule 683 require swift trial resolution. | Rule 683 promotes speed but does not remove appellate jurisdiction. |
| Does a temporary injunction appeal resolve the merits? | No, it is an interim decision, not a final merits determination. | It may overlap and thus be improper/advisory if a merits trial is delayed. | Interim appeal is proper; it does not finally resolve the case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sw. Weather Rsch., Inc. v. Jones, 327 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. 1959) (parties should generally proceed to trial during temporary injunction appeals)
- LTTS Charter Sch., Inc. v. C2 Constr., Inc., 342 S.W.3d 73 (Tex. 2011) (jurisdiction review by higher courts is de novo)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (Texas courts cannot render advisory opinions)
- Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (mootness doctrine explained; controversy must be live)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standards for granting temporary injunctions)
- Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2005) (standing requires an actual controversy affecting parties)
- Del Valle Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Lopez, 845 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. 1992) (temporary injunctions are interim, not final disposals)