Senter Investments, L.L.C. v. Veerjee
358 S.W.3d 841
Tex. App.2012Background
- This is an accelerated, interlocutory appeal from a temporary injunction blocking a property sale under a lease ROFO.
- The trial court compelled arbitration pursuant to the lease arbitration clause before resolving the injunction.
- Veerjees alleged Senter breached the lease by contracting to sell to a third party without recognizing ROFO.
- The lease provides damages as exclusive remedy; Senter sought to arbitrate and abate proceedings; injunction issued pending arbitration.
- This Court holds the injunction is not void; orders arbitration; remaining issues seek advisory opinions; we reach only the voidness question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the temporary injunction void for lacking a trial setting? | Veerjees contend void due to missing trial setting. | Senter argues invalid because no trial setting; arbitration pending. | Not void; TAA stay governs; injunction proper pending arbitration. |
| Does the injunction improperly prejudge the merits by ignoring exclusive remedy provisions? | Veerjees argue merits resolution barred by exclusive remedy clause. | Senter contends merits arise in arbitration and injunction only temporary relief. | Injunction does not decide merits; arbitration governs remedies. |
| Is the appeal an advisory opinion on merits that should be dismissed? | Veerjees rely on arbitration for merits; argue no advisory opinions. | Senter seeks merits ruling to advantage in arbitration. | Yes, it seeks advisory merits opinion; appeal dismissed on merits question. |
| May arbitration delay undermine the injunction or appellate process? | Arbitration should proceed promptly to resolve dispute. | Parties may delay arbitration for strategic reasons. | Delay not rewarded; arbitration should proceed to resolve merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dallas/Fort Worth Int'l Airport Bd. v. Ass'n of Taxicab Operators, USA, 335 S.W.3d 361 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2010) (no merits advisory opinions; stay and expedited resolution favored)
- CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (stay pending arbitration; stay appropriate after compel)
- In re Olshan Foundation Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883 (Tex. 2010) (arbitration is intended as lower-cost, expedited resolution)
- In re Gulf Exploration, L.L.C., 289 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. 2009) (arbitration procedure guidance; stay and injunctive powers noted)
- Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1992) (arbitration benefits; procedural alignment with injunctive orders)