True Blue Animal Rescue, Inc. v. Waller County
01-16-00967-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 20, 2017Background
- Waller County seized 34 horses from Kathie Digilio for alleged cruelty; True Blue Animal Rescue took custody and cared for the horses.
- Waller County initiated divestiture proceedings in justice court; while pending, the county and Digilio agreed some horses would be returned to Digilio and Digilio would pay True Blue $30,000; the justice court entered an order reflecting that agreement.
- True Blue sued Waller County in district court seeking, among other relief, a temporary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the justice court’s order; it also pleaded an alternative breach-of-contract claim against the county.
- The district court initially issued a TRO preserving the status quo and later extended it three times; at the temporary-injunction hearing the court orally found True Blue’s petition did not state a claim and subsequently denied the application for a temporary injunction (order without stated reasons).
- True Blue appealed the denial, arguing the trial court erred; the court of appeals reviewed whether True Blue met the pleading and evidentiary burdens necessary to obtain a temporary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether True Blue pleaded a viable cause of action against Waller County | True Blue asserted a breach-of-contract claim previously; contends county is appropriate defendant because acts arose from county actors | County defended against the injunction, and True Blue abandoned its breach-of-contract claim on appeal | True Blue failed to plead a cause of action against Waller County; no viable claim shown |
| Whether True Blue produced evidence establishing a probable right to relief | True Blue argued wrongful justice-court order and sought preservation of status quo; relied on events involving county actors | County pointed to lack of evidence linking it to the justice-court order or demonstrating probable right | True Blue did not meet burden of production — no evidence showing probable right to relief against county |
| Whether exclusion of uncertified justice-court orders was reversible error | True Blue argued excluded orders were relevant and should have been admitted | County maintained admissibility rulings were within trial court discretion and errors (if any) were harmless | Any error in excluding those documents was harmless because True Blue still failed to show entitlement to injunction |
| Whether Waller County was the proper defendant (and related remedies) | True Blue contended county responsibility because county district attorney and justice of the peace actions produced the contested order | County (implicitly) contested responsibility; alternative remedy (mandamus) against justice court might be appropriate | Court concluded True Blue failed to show why county was liable and did not demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief against county |
Key Cases Cited
- Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. 1993) (temporary injunction is extraordinary relief)
- Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (purpose of temporary injunction is to preserve status quo)
- In re Newton, 146 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. 2004) (definition of status quo)
- Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Eng’g Co., 433 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. 1968) (applicant’s burden of production for injunction)
- INEOS Grp. Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (review standard for temporary injunction rulings)
- Intercontinental Terminals Co. v. Vopak N. Am., Inc., 354 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (applicant must produce some evidence of probable right)
- Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (appellate review limited to whether trial court abused discretion)
- In re J.P.B., 180 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. 2005) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (harmless-error test for evidentiary rulings)
- ICON Benefit Adm’rs II, L.P. v. Abbott, 409 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (harmlessness standard applied to exclusion of evidence)