Case Information
*0 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 08/14/2015 1:35:32 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk *1 ACCEPTED 04-15-00127-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 8/14/2015 1:35:32 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK No. 04-15-00127CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 4 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC.
AND LAREDO MARINE, L.L.C., Appellants V.
GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC, Appellee Appealed from the 218 th District Court of La Salle County, Texas SUR REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE M OORMAN T ATE H ALEY U PCHURCH & Y ATES , LLP By: STEVEN C. HALEY State Bar No. 08741900 207 East Main P.O. Box 1808 Brenham, Texas 77834-1808 Telephone: (979) 836-5664 Telecopier: (979) 830-0913 shaley@moormantate.com *2 MONTEZ & PATTERSON John H. Patterson, Jr. State Bar No. 24027716 Thornton Plaza 508 Thorton, Suite 4 Cotulla, Texas 78014 Telephone: (830) 483-5191 Telecopier: (830) 483-5192 john@montezandpatterson.com JOE RUBIO LAW FIRM JOE RUBIO State Bar No. 17362100 1000 Washington St., Ste. 4 Laredo, Texas 78040 Telephone: (956) 712-2223 Telecopier: (956) 712-2225 joerubio@joerubiolawfirm.com Attorneys for Appellee, Grace River Ranch, LLC APPELLEE REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT *3 TABLE OF CONTENTS REFERENCES TO PARTIES................................................................................ 2
REFERENCES TO RECORD ................................................................................ 2
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................... 2
A. Grace River Was Awarded Permanent Injunction .................................... 2
B. Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................... 3
C. Evidence Supporting Permanent Injunction .............................................. 4
D. Order Denying Second Petition for Mandamus ......................................... 4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ..................................................................... 5
PRAYER ................................................................................................................... 5
iii *4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases
Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) .............................. 4
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) ............................... 3
Texas Health Care Information v. Seton Health Plan, Inc. , 94
S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App. – Austin 2002, aff’d in part,
remanded in part) .......................................................................................... 4
Statutes
T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(4) ............................................... 4
iv *5 No. 04-15-00127CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 4 TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC.
AND LAREDO MARINE, L.L.C., Appellants V.
GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC, Appellee Appealed from the 218 th District Court of La Salle County, Texas SUR REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellee, Grace River Ranch, LLC respectfully files this Sur Reply Brief of
Appellee, in this appeal [1] from a Partial Summary Judgment entered in the 218 th
District Court of La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Stella Saxon, presiding.
*6 REFERENCES TO PARTIES Appellee, Grace River Ranch, LLC, is sometimes referred to herein simply
as “Grace River.” Appellant, El Caballero Ranch, Inc., is sometimes referred to
herein simply as “El Caballero.” Appellant, Laredo Marine, L.L.C., is sometimes
referred to herein simply as “Laredo Marine.” Intervenor, Robert W. Brittingham,
is sometimes referred to herein simply as “Brittingham.”
REFERENCES TO RECORD References to the transcript from the District Court of La Salle County are
referred to as “CR” (Clerk’s Record), or similar reference, followed by the
appropriate Volume and Page number(s). Reference to the Reporter’s Record are
referred to as “RR” followed by the appropriate Volume and Page number(s).
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES A. Grace River Was Awarded Permanent Injunction . By the Partial
Summary Judgment the trial court made a final determination of the validity,
continuity, and extent of both the Grace River Easements and the Public Easement.
See CR V, 285. In order to allow Grace River and the public to effectively
exercise their property rights, the trial court entered a permanent injunction against
any further interference with these easements by El Caballero and Laredo Marine.
See CR V, 284-85. [2]
Appellants suggest by their Reply Brief that the Partial Summary Judgment
granted more relief than Grace River sought. Appellants’ Reply Brief at 10 relying
on Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001). The relief to
which the summary judgment movant is entitled is determined by reference to the
applicable pleadings. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., supra at 200 . A request for
injunctive relief was specifically contained in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
CR I, 3. The permanent injunction granted was specifically pleaded for in Grace
River’s petition. See CR III, 424; Second Supplemental CR II, 29, 48. [3] Appellants
misapprehend the record.
B. Jurisdiction. Appellants suggest by their Reply Brief that this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue of whether the Partial Summary Judgment
contained an interlocutory injunction. Appellants’ Reply Brief at n.3. This
fundamentally mistakes the law. Appellants’ claim that the Partial Summary
Judgment contains a temporary injunction is essential to this Court’s jurisdiction.
T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)(4). If the Partial Summary
*8 Judgment does not contain a temporary injunction, then there is no jurisdiction for
this interlocutory appeal. Id. Courts always have jurisdiction to determine their
own jurisdiction. Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 146 n. 14
(Tex. 2012). This Court has inherent jurisdiction to determine that the Partial
Summary Judgment does not contain a temporary injunction.
C. Evidence Supporting Permanent Injunction. Appellants suggest
that the injunctive relief in the Partial Summary Judgment is not supported by
competent evidence. Appellants’ Reply Brief at 12-13. The thread of this
argument is that the extensive summary judgment evidence of Grace River was
incompetent to support a permanent injunction. Appellants’ Reply Brief at 12.
Appellants mistake the law. A permanent injunction can be granted on the basis of
summary judgment evidence. Texas Health Care Information v. Seton Health
Plan, Inc. , 94 S.W.3d 841, 853 (Tex. App. – Austin 2002, aff’d in part, remanded
in part).
D. Order Denying Second Petition for Mandamus. In In re El
Caballero Ranch, Inc., No. 04-15-00138-CV, Fourth Court of Appeals, San
Antonio, Texas, this Court by order denied the second Petition for Writ of
Mandamus filed in this case by El Caballero Ranch and Laredo Marine.
Appellants suggest that such order determined that the Partial Summary Judgment
contained a temporary, not permanent, injunction. Appellants’ Reply Brief at n.5.
Appellants misapprehend the record. The March 12, 2015 order neither contains
the words “temporary” nor “injunction”. Indeed the March 12, 2015 order offers
no expressed basis for denying the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Grace River’s pleadings supported the award of a permanent injunction
against interference with the private and public easements. This court has the
inherent authority to determine that this interlocutory appeal is outside its appellate
jurisdiction. Summary judgment evidence will support the entry of a permanent
injunction. The order denying Appellants’ Second Petition for Writ of Mandamus
makes no determination of the nature of the injunction contained in the Partial
Summary Judgment.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellee prays that the Partial
Summary Judgment of the trial court be affirmed in all things.
Dated: August 14, 2015
Respectfully submitted, MOORMAN TATE HALEY UPCHURCH & YATES, LLP By: /s/ STEVEN C. HALEY STEVEN C. HALEY State Bar No. 08741900 207 East Main P.O. Box 1808 *10 Brenham, Texas 77834-1808 Telephone: (979) 836-5664 Telecopier: (979) 830-0913 shaley@moormantate.com MONTEZ & PATTERSON John H. Patterson, Jr. State Bar No. 24027716 Thornton Plaza 508 Thorton, Suite 4 Cotulla, Texas 78014 Telephone: (830) 483-5191 Telecopier: (830) 483-5192 john@montezandpatterson.com JOE RUBIO LAW FIRM JOE RUBIO State Bar No. 17362100 1000 Washington St., Ste. 4 Laredo, Texas 78040 Telephone: (956) 712-2223 Telecopier: (956) 712-2225 joerubio@joerubiolawfirm.com Attorneys for Appellee, Grace River Ranch, LLC *11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Steven C. Haley, do hereby certify that on the 14 th day of August, 2015, I
served a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading to the following, in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:
Annalyn G. Smith
Schmoyer Reinhard, LLP
17806 I-10W, Ste. 400
San Antonio, Texas 78257
E-mail: asmith@ar-llp.com
Kimberly S. Keller
Keller Stolarczyk PLLC
234 West Bandera Road, No. 120
Boerne, Texas 78006
E-mail: kim@kellsto.com
Donato D. Ramos
Donato D. Ramos, Jr.
Law Offices of Donato D. Ramos
6721 McPherson
P.O. Box 452009
Laredo, Texas 78045
donatoramosjr@ddrlex.com
/s/ STEVEN C. HALEY STEVEN C. HALEY 7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE The number of words in this Sur Reply Brief of Appellee, excluding those
provisions described in Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1) is 1,363. This figure is provided
in reliance on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this
document.
/s/ STEVEN C. HALEY STEVEN C. HALEY 8
[1] This is now the fifth appellate/original proceeding filed by Appellants in this case with this court.
[2] Refer to Appellee’s Brief at A(3) for authorities regarding a permanent injunction in an interlocutory order.
[3] Appellants suggest (without reference to the record) that Grace River pleaded only for a temporary injunction. Appellants’ Reply Brief at 6. The record does not support this statement.