law-temporary-injunction-standard criteria test |
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of a lawsuit's subject matter pending a
full trial on the merits. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). However, a temporary
injunction is an extraordinary remedy that does not issue as a matter of right. Id. Instead, the applicant
bears the burden of pleading and proving that he has (1) a cause of action against the defendant, (2) a
probable right to the relief sought, and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Id.
The party seeking injunctive relief - here, St. Laurent - carries the burden to demonstrate an irreparable
injury. See Reach Group, L.L.C. v. Angelina Group, 173 S.W.3d 834, 838 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.]
2005, no pet.). An injury is considered irreparable if the party cannot be adequately compensated in
damages, or if those damages are incapable of calculation. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 204; Reach Group,
L.L.C., 173 S.W.3d at 838. Generally, however, courts do not enforce contractual rights by injunction,
because an applicant who may recover breach-of-contract damages can rarely establish an irreparable
injury and accompanying inadequate legal remedy. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211; Reach Group, L.L.C., 173
S.W.3d at 838.
We review the grant or denial of a temporary injunction for an abuse of discretion. EMSL Analytical, Inc. v.
Younker, 154 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.). A trial court does not abuse
its discretion if it bases its decision on conflicting evidence in the record. Law v. William Marsh Rice Univ.,
123 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). With respect to the resolution of
factual issues, the appellant must establish the trial court reasonably could have reached only one
decision. Emeritus Corp. v. Ofczarzak, 198 S.W.3d 222, 225-26 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2006, no pet.).
To the extent that we must consider the evidence to resolve this appeal, we review the evidence in the light
most favorable to the trial court's order, indulging reasonable inferences in its favor. See EMSL Analytical,
Inc., 154 S.W.3d at 696. Therefore, we will not disturb the trial court's ruling if some evidence in the record
reasonably supports the decision. Butnaru, 84 S.W.3d at 211. However, a trial court abuses its discretion
if it misapplies the law to the established facts of the case. Law, 123 S.W.3d at 792.
North Cypress Med. Ctr. Operation Co, Ltd. v. Laurent, MD (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 4,
2009)(Sullivan) (interlocutory appeal of temporary injunction, no irreparable damages shown, temporary
injunction dissolved by court of appeals)(partnership dispute)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Sullivan
Before Justices Seymore, Brown and Sullivan)
14-09-00204-CV North Cypress Medical Center Operating Company, Ltd. and North Cypress Operating
G.P. LLC v. Matthew St. Laurent, M.D
Appeal from 333rd District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: JOSEPH J. HALBACH
Here, St. Laurent contends that his partnership shares are "unique" such that money damages cannot fully
compensate him for their loss. In the alternative, he suggests that the amount of such damages cannot be
adequately measured. We will address each of these contentions, in turn.