El Caballero Ranch, Inc. A/K/A El Caballero, LLC and Laredo Marine, LLC v. Grace River Ranch, LLC

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 FILED IN
4th COURT OF APPEALS
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
FOR THE 4TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS
08/14/2015 1:35:32 PM
KEITH E. HOTTLE
AT SAN ANTONIO Clerk

EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC.
AND LAREDO MARINE, L.L.C., Appellants
V.
GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC, Appellee

Appealed from
the 218th District Court of
La Salle County, Texas

SUR REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLEE

MOORMAN TATE HALEY
UPCHURCH & YATES, 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

{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 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

{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 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
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 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

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) ...............................................4

iv
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 No. 04-15-00127CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE 4TH 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 218th 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 appeal1 from a Partial Summary Judgment entered in the 218th

District Court of La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Stella Saxon, presiding.

1
This is now the fifth appellate/original proceeding filed by Appellants in this case with this
court.

1
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 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

2
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
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.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4). If the Partial Summary

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.

3
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
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.

4
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
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

5
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 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

6
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Steven C. Haley, do hereby certify that on the 14th 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
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}
 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
{18705.43065-00397133.DOCX}