Mendoza v. Canizales

• Decision Date: 26 June 1985
• Docket Number: No. 04-83-00430-CV,04-83-00430-CV
• Citation: 695 S.W.2d 266
• Parties: Luis O. MENDOZA, M.D., Appellant, v. Jose Gabriel CANIZALES, a/k/a "Gaby" Canizales, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 266

695 S.W.2d 266

Luis O. MENDOZA, M.D., Appellant, v. Jose Gabriel CANIZALES, a/k/a "Gaby" Canizales, Appellee.

No. 04-83-00430-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas San Antonio.

June 26, 1985.

Oscar J. Pena, Sr., Laredo, for appellant.

Julio Garcia, Dist. Atty., Sergio Martinez, Laredo, for appellee.

Before ESQUIVEL, TIJERINA and DIAL, JJ.

DIAL, Justice.

This is an appeal from the trial court's order granting a temporary injunction against the appellant Luis O. Mendoza.

The plaintiff-appellee, Jose Gabriel Canizales, a/k/a "Gaby" Canizales, is the United States Boxing Association's bantam weight champion. The defendant-appellant, Luis O. Mendoza, is a licensed medical doctor and long-time manager of appellee Canizales. Canizales and Mendoza have maintained a unique relationship over the years wherein Mendoza managed Canizales in his amateur years of boxing without a written contract. After Canizales had participated in several boxing matches as a professional, the parties entered into a five year contract which gave Mendoza the sole and exclusive right to manage Canizales and arrange his competitive boxing schedule. Mendoza, in return for Canizales's promise to fight, agreed to use his best efforts to secure remunerative boxing contests for Canizales. The contract granted Mendoza thirty-three and one-third percent (33 1/3%) of the money earned by Canizales pursuant to the contract and required Mendoza to render a full accounting to Canizales every ninety days. The parties agreed to comply with the rules and regulations of the Texas Department of Labor and Standards (TDLS). They further agreed to resolve any controversies pursuant to the contract by submitting their claims to the TDLS for arbitration. Lastly, the contract specified that unless it was signed in the presence of a TDLS representative, it would be invalid.

Canizales's request for injunctive relief arose from what he contended to be an invalid execution of the contract and material breaches of the contract.

The trial court granted an ex parte temporary restraining order against Mendoza on July 14, 1983. Mendoza subsequently filed his answer which included a general denial, allegations of Canizales' breach, recitations that the contract complied with TDLS regulations, and the defensive issues of ratification and waiver. Mendoza also independently set up a jurisdictional plea alleging that a complaint letter sent by Canizales to the TDLS prior to the filing of this suit displaced the jurisdiction of the district court by virtue of the arbitration clause in the contract. This plea was overruled. Mendoza also specifically excepted to the adequacy of Canizales's pleadings with regard to the injunctive relief sought.

The temporary restraining order was subsequently extended to August 4, 1983. An order entered September 1, 1983, converted the temporary restraining order into a temporary injunction. On September 15, 1983, the previously entered temporary injunction was modified and extended by the trial court pursuant to plaintiff's request and a hearing on the matter.

The final order recited that Mendoza should be enjoined and restrained from: attempting to enforce the contract in question, negotiating the sale of or selling the contract, interfering with Canizales's training, preventing Canizales from engaging his own trainers, preventing Canizales from engaging in remunerative boxing matches regardless of who procured the match, and from doing any act calculated to embarrass, harass, or molest Canizales or his boxing reputation.

In point of error three, Mendoza contends that Canizales' pleadings were inadequate to support the judgment. The petition in a suit for injunction must "state all material and essential elements entitling the petitioner to relief and negative every reasonable inference arising upon the facts so stated, that the petitioner under other supposable facts might not be entitled to relief." City Council of City of Fort Worth v. Fort Worth Associated Master Plumbers & Heating Contractors, 8 S.W.2d 730, 735 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1928, writ ref'd). Allegations of fact should be direct, certain and particular and leave nothing to inference. The petition should contain specific fact allegations showing a right in the pleader, the wrong done by the defendant, and the resulting injury. Texas State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers, v. Dalton, Hinds & O'Brien Engineering Co., 382 S.W.2d 130, 135 (Tex.Civ.App.--Corpus Christi 1964, no writ).

The petition in question clearly sets out the unique manager-boxer relationship between Mendoza and Canizales. It further recites the importance of Canizales receiving the proper training and supervision necessary to maintain his professional status. It further alleges that Mendoza, in dereliction of his managerial duty and in violation of their contract, has prevented Canizales from participating in remunerative boxing contests and has failed to provide the training and supervision necessary to further his career. The petition also states that Mendoza's conduct has harmed Canizales, that such damages are largely intangible, that he is without an adequate remedy at law, and that the harm will likely continue without intervention by the court.

Although we are mindful of the strenuous pleading requirements necessary to support injunctive relief, we must also consider the special relationship between the parties as presented in the pleadings. More importantly, we must also take note of Canizales's unique status as a professional boxer and be mindful of the damage that potentially could befall his status without proper training and supervision.

We find the facts presented in Canizales's petition adequately set out the necessary requisites for injunctive relief. Point of error three is overruled.

In order to be entitled to injunctive relief, an applicant must establish irreparable injury, the lack of an adequate remedy at law, and the likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Engineering Co., 433 S.W.2d 683, 685-86 (Tex.1968); GATX Leasing Corp. v. DBM Drilling Corp., 657 S.W.2d 178, 180 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1983, no writ).

Appellant in point of error one contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Canizales injunctive relief since Canizales failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and irreparable injury.

Canizales, in his original petition, alleged that the contract between he and Mendoza was void since it was not executed in compliance with TDLS regulations and since it was fraudulently notarized. Alternatively, Canizales alleged that Mendoza, acting in his capacity as manager, had materially breached the contract.

The evidence presented by Canizales to establish that he would probably prevail on the merits included references to TDLS regulations and clause eight of the contract.

Section 61.58 of the TDLS regulations recites that contracts between boxers and managers shall be executed and notarized on standard forms of the TDLS. Clause eight of the contract in question stated that the agreement was not valid unless signed in the presence of a representative of TDLS.

Benito Cortina, a representative...