Opinion
01-24-00419-CV
06-26-2024
Trill Burgers LLC, Trill Burgers 3607 LLC, Trill Tenders LLC, Bernard Freeman, Andy Nguyen, and Nicolas Scurfield v. Benson Vivares and Patsy Vivares
189th District Court of Harris County, Trial court case number: 2023-56337
Panel consists of: Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.
ORDER
APRIL FARRIS, JUDGE.
Appellants, Trill Burgers LLC, Trill Burgers 3607 LLC, Trill Tenders LLC, Bernard Freeman, Andy Nguyen, and Nicolas Scurfield, appealed from the trial court's May 24, 2024 Temporary Injunction Order. The trial court's Temporary Injunction Order is an appealable interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4); Tex.R.App.P. 28.1(a).
On June 14, 2024, appellants filed an "Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief to Stay Enforcement of Temporary Injunction and Trial Court Proceedings." In their motion, appellants requested that the Court "issue temporary orders staying enforcement of the trial court's Temporary Injunction Order against [a]ppellants and any further proceedings in the trial court," pending the Court's determination of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 29.3. Appellants argued that the requested relief is appropriate because, among other reasons, the Temporary Injunction Order is "void on its face because it does not include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits." See Tex. R. Civ. P. 683 ("Every order granting a temporary injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief sought."); see also Flowers v. Wallis, No. 01-22-00785-CV, 2023 WL 3873348, at 1-2 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] June 8, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (dissolving temporary injunction order after concluding it was "void because it did not set a date for trial on the merits").
On June 18, 2024, the Court requested that appellees, Benson Vivares and Patsy Vivares, file a response to appellants' motion. On June 25, 2024, appellees filed their response, arguing that a stay of the trial court's temporary injunction order was not appropriate, because, among other reasons, the arguments raised in appellants' emergency motion did not constitute an emergency, and that appellants' arguments were "merits-based arguments of their respective appeals."
Appellees' response acknowledged that the trial court's temporary injunction order failed to include a trial date. Appellees stated that they "have filed an emergency motion to supplement the [temporary injunction order] with [a] trial date." However, the Court's records do not reflect that any such supplemental or amended temporary injunction order has been entered.
The Court grants in part appellants' "Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief to Stay Enforcement of Temporary Injunction and Trial Court Proceedings." Enforcement of the trial court's May 24, 2024 Temporary Injunction Order is stayed. However, at this time, we decline to stay any other trial proceedings in trial court case number 2023-56337. The stay imposed by this order remains in effect pending disposition of the appeal or further order of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.