Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
CHRISTOPHER M. PROPST AND STRIDE INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellants,
GREGORY K. PROPST, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF RIOSTAR SOLUTIONS, INC., Appellees.
appeal from the 275th District Court of Hidalgo County,
Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Perkes.
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING
GREGORY T. PERKES JUSTICE.
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
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. We reverse and
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.
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.
September 20, 2016, Greg filed suit and an application for
temporary injunction against Chris and his company,
Stride. 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
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.)
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
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.