Summary
explaining that "parties 'may not use an appeal of a temporary injunction ruling to get an advance ruling on the merits'" (quoting Brar v. Sedey, 307 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.))
Summary of this case from Lantana Ridge Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. SJWTX, Inc.Opinion
No. 05-10-00309-CV
Opinion issued October 14, 2010.
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 10-01692-J.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FRANCIS, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case involves a dispute over whether the City of Wilmer is required to read the individual water meters in River Oaks M.H.C., a manufactured home community, and bill each tenant individually. Northwind Properties, Ltd., the owner of the property, filed this declaratory judgment lawsuit after the City gave notice it would no longer provide the services and would instead read the master meter and bill Northwood for the entire community.
After a brief hearing on March 4, 2010, the trial court granted Northwind's application for temporary injunction and, among other things, ordered the City to "immediately cease and desist from ceasing its current practice of reading individual tenant water meters" at River Oaks and "billing each tenant individually for their water use" until trial on the merits or further order of the court. The order set a June 15, 2010 trial date. The City filed an interlocutory appeal. This case was orally argued on September 29, more than three months after the trial setting. We asked the parties about the status of the case. The parties stated the trial court "closed down" the case on April 27, 2010 until this appeal could be heard "so we would know whether or not this temporary injunction applied." No trial date has been set, and the parties stated that there has been "zero movement" on the case. Neither party indicated it had objected to the trial court's order or had taken any action requesting that the case proceed.
As this Court has previously instructed, parties "may not use an appeal of a temporary injunction ruling to get an advance ruling on the merits" and the appeal of a temporary injunction "should not be cause for trial delay." Brar v. Sedey, 307 S.W.3d 916, 920 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, no pet.); Hiss v. Great N. Amer. Cos., 871 S.W.2d 218, 219 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, no writ). We explained that, often, "the fastest way to cure the hardship of an unfavorable preliminary order is to try the case on the merits." Brar, 307 S.W.3d at 920; Hiss, 871 S.W.2d at 219. Finally, we admonished trial courts and litigants to "proceed expeditiously from the grant or denial of temporary injunctive relief to full consideration of the merits to reduce the need for interlocutory appeals." Brar, 307 S.W.3d at 920; Hiss, 871 S.W.2d at 219.
Here, the trial court has stayed the proceedings until the appeal is decided, and the parties have at a minimum acquiesced in the delay. We refuse to condone or approve the abatement, stay, or continuance of trial court proceedings to obtain an advance ruling on the merits of the underlying lawsuit.
We dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Brar, 307 S.W.3d at 920; Hiss, 871 S.W.2d at 219.