Diesel Injection Sales & Service, Inc. v. Renfro

• Decision Date: 25 June 1981
• Docket Number: No. 1898,1898
• Parties: DIESEL INJECTION SALES & SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. Kevin RENFRO and Schwing Diesel Company, Inc., Appellees.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 20

619 S.W.2d 20

DIESEL INJECTION SALES & SERVICE, INC., Appellant, v. Kevin RENFRO and Schwing Diesel Company, Inc., Appellees.

No. 1898.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

June 25, 1981.

Rehearing Denied July 16, 1981.

Andrew J. Lehrman, Sorrell, Anderson, Sorrell & Chachere, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Ron Barroso, Banales, Cavada, Barroso & Laurel, Corpus Christi, for appellees.

OPINION

BISSETT, Justice.

Diesel Injection Sales & Service, Inc., appeals from the denial of a temporary injunction against Kevin Renfro and Schwing Diesel Company, Inc., (hereinafter "Diesel Injection"), to enforce a noncompetition covenant in Renfro's employment contract. ¹

Diesel Injection's application for temporary injunction alleged a violation of the contractual covenant. In its appeal, it challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support several of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed by the trial judge, and further complains that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant a temporary injunction.

A temporary injunction has as its main function the maintenance of the status quo of the subject matter of the lawsuit in order that the trial court's ability to render a final decision on the merits will be preserved. In order for an applicant to prevail on his application for the issuance of a temporary injunction, he must 1) plead a cause of action; 2) prove a probable right to relief on a final trial; and, 3) prove a probable injury in the interim. Sun Oil Company v. Whitaker, 424 S.W.2d 216 (Tex.1968); Transport Co. of Texas v. Robertson Transports, 152 Tex. 551, 261 S.W.2d 549 (1953).

The trial court is vested with great discretion in granting or denying a temporary injunction, and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex.1978); Texas Foundries v. International Moulders & Foundry Workers' Union, 151 Tex. 239, 248 S.W.2d 460 (1952). In reviewing an order either granting or denying a temporary injunction, we should indulge in all legitimate inferences from the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's judgment, even though we may disapprove of the reasons given by a trial court for granting or denying the same. Hartwell's Office World v. Systex Corp., 598 S.W.2d 636 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.) 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Smith Protective Services, Inc. v. Robertson, 560 S.W.2d 174 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1977, no writ).

Among the findings of fact, are the following:

"9. No trade secrets or secret techniques exist in the diesel pump repair business that Plaintiff and Defendants are involved in.

10. The methods used by both Defendants and Plaintiff to repair diesel pumps were matters of general knowledge, generally available in the diesel repair business.

11. The Defendant Renfro did not divert any customers from the Plaintiff when Renfro left Plaintiff's employment and began working for Defendant Schwing.

12. The Defendant Schwing did not acquire any new work techniques, customers or customer contacts as a result of his employment of the Defendant Renfro.

13. The Plaintiff did not lose any customers or business as a result of Defendant Renfro's employment with Defendant Schwing."

Diesel Injection is engaged in the business of diesel engine repair work involving diesel injection systems on diesel engines or turbochargers, as well as offering over the counter sales of filters and related diesel parts. In 1966, Renfro began work for it as a mechanic. On February 22, 1979, approximately thirteen years later, the involved employment contract was executed between Renfro and Diesel Injection. During November 1980, Renfro terminated the employment contract and went to work for Schwing Diesel Company, Inc. (Schwing Diesel).

During his years of service for Diesel Injection, Renfro had risen to the position of shop foreman. During his normal duties as a shop foreman, Renfro had substantially no contact with customers of his employer. Customers were handled through a front desk, and these salesmen delivered the engines in need of repair to the mechanic in the shop. Renfro's only contact with the customers was on weekends when no salesman was at the front desk. Renfro testified that he did not solicit any customers of Diesel Injection after he terminated his employment and went to work for Schwing Diesel. Frank Schwing, part owner of Schwing Diesel, testified that as a result of having employed Renfro, Schwing Diesel had not received any additional business, Renfro had not brought Schwing Diesel any new customers, nor had Schwing Diesel obtained any new techniques, procedures or secrets.

Alton Koenning, the owner of...