Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Propst v. Propst

Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg

October 31, 2019

CHRISTOPHER M. PROPST AND STRIDE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellants,
v.
GREGORY K. PROPST, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF RIOSTAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellees.

          On appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas.

          Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

          GREGORY T. PERKES JUSTICE.

         In September 2016, Appellees RioStar Solutions, Inc. (RioStar) and RioStar co-owner Gregory K. Propst (Greg) filed suit and application for injunctive relief against appellants RioStar co-owner Christopher M. Propst (Chris) and his management and consultant company Stride Investments, LLC (Stride), alleging breach of fiduciary duty, civil conspiracy, violations of the Texas Civil Theft Act, and tortious interference with contract. In October 2016, the trial court entered a temporary injunction order (October 2016 order). In June 2018, the trial court signed an order (June 2018 order) extending the October 2016 order following hearings on appellees' request for enforcement of the October 2016 order and appellants' motion to dissolve the October 2016 order. Appellants timely appealed the trial court's June 2018 order, see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014, arguing that the trial court (1) entered an invalid temporary injunction order, and (2) abused its discretion in denying appellants' motion to dissolve the temporary injunction.

         On June 26, 2019, we issued a memorandum opinion dismissing appellants' appeal for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Propst v. Propst, No. 13-18-00291-CV, 2019 WL 2622337, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg June 27, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellants and appellees thereafter filed motions for rehearing and for en banc reconsideration, and appellees requested to supplement the record with evidence of a pending motion for contempt. We granted appellees' request to supplement the record. We now grant appellees' motion for rehearing, withdraw our June 26, 2019 memorandum opinion, and substitute the following in its place.[1] We reverse and remand.

         I. Background

         On July 31, 2013, RioStar, a Texas corporation, was created by relatives, Chris and Greg. On August 23, 2013, RioStar entered into an "Independent Contractor/Sales Agent Agreement" with Patterson Freight Systems, Inc. (Patterson). Under the contract, Patterson provided RioStar with sales and operational materials, including an email domain and computer software that tracked RioStar's business transactions and customer lists. On October 1, 2013, RioStar entered into a "Management Services Agreement" with Stride.

         By mid-2016, the relationship between Chris and Greg had deteriorated, which adversely affected RioStar. On August 31, 2016, RioStar received a termination notice from Patterson. Chris and Greg, on behalf of RioStar, requested a termination extension date, and Patterson agreed to extend the termination date until September 26, 2016.[2]

         On September 20, 2016, Greg filed suit and an application for temporary injunction against Chris and his company, Stride.[3] Meanwhile, on behalf of Stride, Chris executed a new contract with Patterson on September 27, 2016; Stride then subsumed use of RioStar's former software and email account.

         On October 19, 2016, the trial court entered a temporary injunction order requiring Chris to: (1) "pay RioStar a royalty of 10% of the gross brokerage or $10, 000, whichever is greater, during the term of the Temporary Injunction"; (2) provide "weekly reports to RioStar of all brokerage activity"; (3) resign as RioStar's director and officer; (4) terminate Stride's contract with RioStar; and (5) turn over electronics used by former RioStar employees, including his personal laptop and cell phones, to counsel for a forensic sweep. The court additionally ordered that the October 2016 order would "remain effective until the trial on the merits set for 9:00 o'clock a.m., on the 1st day of May, 2017 . . . unless dissolved or modified sooner by Order of this Court." (emphasis added.)

         Appellants did not appeal the October 2016 order, and the case did not proceed to trial on May 1, 2017. The parties dispute whether the October 2016 order expired by its own prescribed terms on the May 1st date. On May 24, 2017, appellees filed a motion to hold appellants in contempt for failure to comply with the October 2016 order and to extend and enforce the order. Appellants responded by filing a motion to dissolve, deny removal, or modify the temporary injunction, and alternatively, appellants requested a bond increase. Although the court held the evidentiary injunction hearing on May 30, 2017, and multiple hearings thereafter on this matter, the second temporary injunction order was not signed until June 19, 2018.

         The trial court took "judicial notice of all prior proceedings, the pleadings, including the evidence presented, the pleadings, responses and arguments of counsel, [and found] that the Temporary Injunction issued on October 19, 2016 should be extended." The June 2018 order contained multiple revisions to the October 2016 order, including removing paragraph four altogether and changing the royalty requirement to "10% of the gross brokerage or $7, 500, whichever is greater," with said payments expiring upon its stated "effective until" date. The trial court provided that the June 2018 order would "remain effective until the trial on the merits set for 10:00 o'clock a.m., on the 24th day of September, 2018." This appeal followed.[4]

         II. Jurisdiction

         A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.