Steve Huynh, Individually Yvonne Huynh, Individually Huynh Poultry Farm, LLC D/B/A Steve Thi Huynh Poultry Farm D/B/A Huynh Poultry Farm T & N Poultry Farm, LLC Thinh Bao Nguyen, Individually Timmy Huynh Poultry Farm Timmy Huynh, Individually And Sanderson Farms, Inc. v. Frank Blanchard, Angelia Snow, Tanya Berry, Kimberly Riley, John Miller, Amy Miller, Chad Martinez, Emily Martinez, Mersini Blanchard, Malakoff Properties, LLC, and Ronny Snow
21-0676
| Tex. | Jun 7, 2024Background
- Neighbors sued Sanderson Farms and local growers (the Huynhs and related LLCs) after odors from two adjacent broiler chicken farms on one 230-acre tract created persistent offensive smells, documented by odor logs and multiple TCEQ investigations and Notices of Violation (NOVs).
- The jury found that Defendants intentionally and proximately caused a private nuisance and that the nuisance was intermittent (temporary) rather than permanent; it awarded market-value damages that the parties later agreed to set aside.
- The trial court issued a permanent injunction that effectively shut down the farms and barred similar poultry activities within five miles of the plaintiffs’ properties, finding imminent harm and that damages were an inadequate remedy given recurring nuisance and Defendants’ noncompliance and misrepresentations to regulators.
- Defendants appealed, arguing (1) no imminent harm (the jury found the nuisance temporary), (2) damages would be an adequate remedy, and (3) the injunction scope was overbroad; the court of appeals affirmed in part, and the Texas Supreme Court granted review.
- The Supreme Court upheld the court’s authority to issue injunctive relief (imminent harm and inadequacy of legal remedies satisfied) but concluded the injunction’s geographic and substantive breadth exceeded what was necessary to abate the nuisance and remanded for narrowing and defendant-specific tailoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Imminent harm required for injunction | Neighbors: recurring, ongoing odor incidents and TCEQ NOVs show future harm likely without injunction | Defendants: jury found nuisance "temporary/intermittent," so future harm is not imminent | Court: Imminent-harm is a judicial equitable question distinct from jury's temporary/permanent finding; undisputed evidence of recurrent nuisance supported imminent-harm finding |
| Adequacy of legal remedy (damages) | Neighbors: recurring nuisance would require multiplicity of suits and damages cannot fully compensate or deter; some defendants may be judgment-proof | Defendants: plaintiffs could recover past temporary-nuisance damages and sue again for future events | Held: Legal remedies inadequate because recurring/intermittent nuisance would force repeated suits and damages would not provide complete, practical relief; injunction appropriate |
| Scope: shuttering business and 5-mile ban | Neighbors: full abatement justified given noncompliance, misrepresentations, and failure to implement TCEQ recommendations | Defendants: injunction is punitive and broader than necessary; economic hardship and public interest weigh against full shutdown | Held: Equity permits abatement but injunction must be narrowly tailored; trial court abused discretion by imposing a permanent full shutdown and expansive five-mile ban without sufficient evidence of necessity; remand to narrow scope and consider defendant-specific equities |
| Role of TCEQ/administrative remedies | Neighbors: TCEQ involvement and NOVs show regulatory failure to secure compliance; private injunction still proper | Defendants: administrative/regulatory scheme provides adequate remedy or guidance for remediation | Held: Administrative avenues do not preclude equitable relief; TCEQ had not obtained compliance or approved plans sufficient to control odors, so private injunction remains appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016) (nuisance law balances property uses; equity may abate temporary or permanent nuisances)
- Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (air-quality nuisances may be enjoined; distinction between nuisance existence and equitable abatement)
- Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (E. Tex.), L.P., 449 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. 2014) (whether injury is temporary or permanent is a question of law for the court)
- Tex. Pet Foods, Inc. v. State, 591 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. 1979) (decisions on equitable relief and imminence of future harm are for the court)
- Pike v. Tex. EMC Mgmt., LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2020) (elements required for permanent injunction: wrongful act, imminent harm, irreparable injury, inadequate legal remedy)
- Storey v. Central Hide & Rendering Co., 226 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1950) (equitable balancing of hardships; injunction not automatic even in clear nuisance)
- Holubec v. Brandenberger, 111 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2003) (definition of private nuisance and remedies)