Maria De Jesus Garza, Guillermo Torres, and Joe E. Vega, in Their Individual Capacities v. Juan Jose "JJ" Zamora, Sr. and Martin C. Cantu
13-15-00237-CV
Tex. App.Jul 6, 2015Background
- At a duly noticed Port Isabel City Commission meeting, commissioners voted to remove Commissioners Juan Jose “JJ” Zamora and Martin Cantu for doing business with the City, allegedly violating Port Isabel City Charter §2.02 (disqualification for officers doing business with the City).
- Zamora and Cantu sued the City and individual officials seeking reinstatement and a temporary injunction to undo the removal; they alternatively challenged the charter’s constitutionality.
- At the temporary-injunction hearing (Apr. 24, 2015) three witnesses testified: Zamora, Cantu, and Manuel de la Rosa. Zamora and Cantu admitted they conducted and profited from business with the City and that they had notice and an opportunity to be heard at the meeting.
- The trial court verbally granted a temporary injunction at the hearing and later signed a written Temporary Injunction Order (signed May 12, 2015); no bond was filed.
- The City (appellant) argues the appellees failed to present evidence establishing a probable right to recovery as required for a temporary injunction and asks the court of appeals to vacate/reverse the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellees established a probable right to recovery necessary for a temporary injunction | Zamora/Cantu argue removal was improper and seek reinstatement (and alternatively attack charter) | City contends appellees presented no evidence negating their own admissions of doing business with the City, so they failed to prove a probable right to recover | Trial court granted temporary injunction; City appeals, arguing grant was erroneous for lack of evidentiary support (appellant asks reversal) |
| Whether appellees presented evidence of irreparable injury meriting interim relief | Appellees implicitly claim loss of office is irreparable harm warranting injunction | City argues appellees failed to prove probable, imminent, irreparable injury as required | Temporary injunction was entered; factual sufficiency of irreparable-injury showing is contested on appeal |
| Whether the Commission’s hearing and vote were procedurally invalid | Appellees suggest procedural defects invalidated removal | City shows appellees participated in the same meeting, put issues on the agenda, had notice and chance to be heard, and therefore the procedure was valid | Record shows appellees participated and raised another commissioner’s issue at same meeting; City argues procedure was valid |
| Relevance of testimony about other commissioners’ business with the City | Appellees presented evidence that another commissioner also did business with the City, implying unequal enforcement | City argues evidence about others is immaterial to whether Zamora/Cantu violated the charter | City contends such evidence is irrelevant to appellees’ burden to show they did not violate the charter; trial court nonetheless issued injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (applicant for temporary injunction must plead and prove a probable right to recovery and probable, imminent, irreparable injury)
- EMS USA, Inc. v. Shary, 309 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (applicant must present evidence supporting pleadings to obtain preliminary relief)
- IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (evidence supporting a temporary injunction must establish the underlying cause of action)