Bridas Corp. v Unocal Corp.

• Decision Date: 27 April 2000
• Citation: 16 S.W.3d 887
• Parties: <!--16 S.W.3d 887 (Tex.App.-Houston 2000) BRIDAS CORPORATION, Appellant v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, DELTA OIL COMPANY, LTD., DELTA INTERNATIONAL, AND DELTOIL CORPORATION, Appellees NO. 14-99-00796-CV In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 887

16 S.W.3d 887 (Tex.App.-Houston[14th Dist.] 2000)

BRIDAS CORPORATION, Appellant v UNOCAL CORPORATION, DELTA OIL COMPANY, LTD., DELTA INTERNATIONAL, AND DELTOIL CORPORATION, Appellees

NO. 14-99-00796-CV

In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

April 27, 2000.

On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 94,144

Panel consists of Chief Justice Murphy, Justices Hudson, and Wittig.

O P I N I O N

DON WITTIG, Justice.

This accelerated appeal addresses whether a trial court has jurisdiction to issue an anti-suit injunction while the final judgment of the case is pending on appeal. We also consider the claim that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In 1996, appellant, Bridas Corporation, filed suit against appellees, Unocal and Delta (collectively "Unocal") in Fort Bend County. The suit arose out of the parties' activities in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Texas. Bridas asserted claims against Unocal for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective business relations, and civil conspiracy.

About the same time Unocal appeared in the Fort Bend County suit, it filed a parallel declaratory judgment action in Turkmenistan. Bridas responded in its Fort Bend forum with a strongly worded application for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction against Unocal. Bridas contended the Turkmenistan action was a "mirror image" of the Fort Bend case, that the filing of it was "vexatious and oppressive" and "smack[ed] of cynicism, harassment, and delay." As another ground in support of an injunction, Bridas contended the Fort Bend court, upon Bridas' filing of the original action, "obtained exclusive jurisdiction over this controversy." On the basis of Bridas' motion, the court asserted exclusive jurisdiction and enjoined Unocal from prosecuting a parallel claim anywhere in the world but Fort Bend County. Bridas now changes its tack, wistfully to sail away to that same forbidden port.¹

In 1998, Unocal moved for summary judgment. It asserted: (1) Afghanistan and Turkmenistan law applied to Bridas' claims; (2) the laws of those countries do not recognize such claims; (3) therefore, Bridas' claims are barred. After an extensive choice of law and summary judgment hearing, the trial court agreed and granted a take-nothing summary judgment on October 2, 1998. Bridas filed notice of appeal on March 1, 1999, and appeal of that summary judgment has been submitted before this court.

Just prior to a mediation that had been ordered by this court, Bridas notified Unocal it intended to "initiate legal proceedings . . . in Afghanistan if the matter cannot be resolved in the mediation." After the mediation failed, Unocal moved the Fort Bend trial court to enjoin Bridas from filing suit in Afghanistan. The court granted the temporary injunction on June 11, 1999, several months after we assumed jurisdiction and the trial court's plenary power had expired.

Bridas contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the injunction. Alternatively, it contends the court abused its discretion in granting it.

Jurisdiction

In support of its contention that the trial court was powerless to enter the anti-suit injunction, Bridas cites the general rule that a trial court only has plenary power until thirty days after its judgment becomes final. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d); Fruehauf Corp. v. Carrillo, 848 S.W.2d 83, 84 (Tex. 1993). Further, once an appeal is perfected, the court of appeals acquires exclusive plenary jurisdiction over the case. See Robertson v. Ranger Ins. Co., 689 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex. 1985).

Unocal responds that despite these propositions, the trial court continues to retain jurisdiction to protect or enforce its judgment while the case is pending on appeal. See Houston Oil Co. v. Village Mills Co., 202 S.W. 725 (Tex. 1918). The trial court is vested with the inherent judicial authority to enforce its orders and decrees. See Arndt v. Farris, 633 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex.1982); Eichelberger v. Eichelberger, 582 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex. 1979). Additionally, it is vested with explicit statutory authority to enforce its judgments, including the issuance of an injunction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Ann. 65.011 (Vernon 1997);² Tex. R. CIV. P. 308.

Village Mills bears important similarities to our case. There, the plaintiff won a judgment for the ownership of land. During the defendant's appeal on the merits, the plaintiff moved the trial court to enjoin the defendant from cutting timber on the land. The court granted the injunction. The defendant appealed, asserting, as Bridas does now, the trial court was without jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief while the case is on appeal. Citing the predecessor to section 65.011(2), The Texas Supreme Court disagreed: "There is, in our opinion, no doubt as to the power of the District Judge to grant the injunction." Village Mills, 202 S.W. at 725. The court held that the trial court's injunction would "not interfere with the full exercise of the Court of Civil Appeals' power over the appeal." Id. Village Mills thus clearly stands for the proposition that Bridas denies: the trial court is empowered to issue an anti-suit injunction to enforce its judgment while the case is pending on appeal.

The power of a trial court to grant injunctive relief while the case is pending on appeal is supported by other authority. See EMW Mfg. Co. v. Lemons, 724 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1987 orig. proceeding) (the power to grant injunction to preserve status quo or prevent damage to litigant who has an appeal pending rests exclusively with the district judge); Wolf v. Young, 275 S.W.2d 741, 745 (Tex. Civ. App.-San Antonio 1955, no writ) (same); Madison v. Martinez, 42 S.W.2d 84, 86 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1931, no writ) (same).

Appellant contends that Greiner v. Jameson, 865 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1993, writ denied), presents an "analogous situation" and is therefore controlling. In Greiner, the court of appeals reversed the trial court because the sanctions order it had issued compelled the defendant to "specifically perform" the judgment while that judgment was pending on appeal. Id. at 500. The court of appeals held that to permit the trial court to order the defendant to do this "effectively undermines his right to seek appellate relief and denies this Court its lawful jurisdiction of the appeal." Id.

Greiner is inapplicable. Contrary to Bridas' assertion, Greiner does not hold that a trial court is powerless to issue an anti-suit injunction while the case is on appeal. Rather, it enumerates several limits to that power. Specifically Greiner holds, that the trial court may not interfere with the appellate court's determination of the issue, undermine the right of the appellant to prosecute its appeal, or modify its final judgment. Id. at 500. None of this type of overreaching occurred in our case. Here, the trial court's anti-suit injunction only prohibited Bridas from relitigating the identical issues in a foreign court. The trial court simultaneously protected its own judgment and preserved our appellate jurisdiction. We do not perceive, and Bridas does not state, how this undermines or interferes with its right to seek appellate relief in this court or with this court's determination of the issue on appeal. Nor do we see how the injunction in any way modifies the final judgment.

We therefore hold that the trial court did not exceed its power in issuing the anti-suit injunction. See, e.g., TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Ann. 65.011; Village Mills, 202 S.W. at 725; EMW Mfg., 724 S.W.2d at 426. This issue is overruled.

Abuse of Discretion

Bridas argues in the alternative that even if the trial court was empowered to issue an anti-suit injunction, it abused its discretion by so doing.

Generally, the court which renders a judgment has a duty to enforce it. See City of Dallas v. Dixon, 365 S.W.2d 919, 923 (Tex. 1963). However, an anti-suit injunction should be employed sparingly and carefully. See University of Texas v. Morris, 162 Tex. 60, 344 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1961). Such a device should be used only in compelling circumstances. See Gannon v. Payne, 706 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex. 1986). The party seeking the injunction has the burden of showing that a clear equity demands the injunction. Id. The decision to grant or deny an injunction is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Walling v. Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, 58 (Tex. 1993). In reviewing the trial court's order, the appellate court should draw inferences from the evidence in the manner most favorable to the trial court's ruling. See James v. Wall, 783 S.W.2d 615, 619 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, no writ).

An anti-suit injunction is appropriate only to (1) address a threat to the court's jurisdiction; (2) prevent the evasion of important public policy; (3) prevent a multiplicity of suits; or (4) protect a party from vexatious or harassing litigation. Golden Rule Ins. Co. v. Harper, 925 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex. 1996). It appears that Unocal's principal basis for the injunction was that Bridas' suit threatened "vexatious or harassing litigation."

Some of the strongest evidence supporting an anti-suit injunction against Bridas comes from Bridas itself. When Unocal filed its suit in Turkmenistan, in its sworn application for temporary injunction, Bridas emphatically maintained that:

* the Fort Bend court is vested with "exclusive jurisdiction over this controversy between the parties" and "[i]t is improper for Unocal to thwart, subvert and defeat the jurisdiction of this court by filing a foreign action."

* Unocal's single, parallel, concurrent action against it in Afghanistan is "vexatious and oppressive" and "smacks of cynicism, harassment, and delay."

Unocal contends that Bridas is now judicially estopped to deny the foregoing. The elements required to...