Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 3 , 2022

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00682

- CV

5826 INTERESTS, LTD

. AND THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS 6213 RICHMOND AVENUE, HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellant s
V.
CITY OF HOUSTON , App ellee

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 66733

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is a n accelerated , interlocutory appeal from the granting of a temporary injunction against appellant s 5826 Interests, Ltd. and the R eal Property K nown as 6213 Richmond Avenue , Houston, Harris County, Texas (collectiv ely 5826
Interest s)

. 1 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4)

. Concluding

1 The t rial court also granted the temporary injunction aga inst TBJNO Inve stmen ts, LLC, th e op erator of an afte r

- hours sexually oriented business in the building loc ated on 62132

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the temporary inju nction, we affirm the trial c ourt ’ s amended order g ranting temporary injunction

. B ACKGRO U ND
TBJNO Investments operates an after

- hours sexually oriented b usiness i n the building located on the property commonly identified as 6213 Richmond Avenu e in Ho uston

. 5826 Interest s owns th is property. The club has operated under various names, including “ Showgirls, ” and “ Bella ’ s , ” but it was operating as

“ Bunny ’ s Gentlema n ’ s Club ” during th e times relevant to th is appeal. The club was located in a high

- crime area and Bunny ’ s has a ge neral reputation as a “ crime
haven

. ” Bunny ’ s did not have a sexually oriented business permit and it could not
receive on e i f it applied because i t was located too close t o two schools and a
church.

The C ity of Houston received a large number of complaints regarding criminal activity in and around Bunny ’ s

. The compl aints included drug offenses,
criminal mischief
, graffiti, th eft, assa ul ts, robberies, fre quent gunf ire, and a drive

by shooting during wh ich the club manager at the time was shot in the le g. The City of Houston began an investig atio n of Bunny ’ s

. Officer Domegas of the Houston Police Department inves tigated Bunny ’ s on Octobe r 8, 2020. Domegas immediately observed a large sig n outside the club that said “ Bunny ’ s Gen t leman ’ s Club ” with a silhouette of a woman dancing on a stripper pole. The investigators discovere d that Bunny ’ s did no t ha ve a certific ate of occu pancy

. The investigation a lso revealed serious fire code violations inside the club and Bunny ’ s was ordered to shut down immedi ately.

Richm ond Av enue in Houston . This entity has no t appeale d the tempora ry injunction order

.3

Investigators went to the club again on July 27, 20 21. Bu nny ’ s did not have

a n alcohol license
, but undercover police off icers were able to purchase alcohol while visiting the club ; they also saw club employees serving alcohol
, a nd club patrons con sum ing alcohol inside the clu b

. In a ddition
, B unny ’ s did not have a sexually oriented business lic ense but in vestigat ors discovered female entertainers
with exposed brea sts and buttocks dan cing on stage in a prov ocative manner
includin g “ pole tricks ” and performing “ lap dances ” w hich entai led the ente rtain e r

“ st raddling the lap o f a patron and basically grinding in a sexual manner. ”
Undercover officers also discovered underage female ent ertainers in the club. 2 The police arrested one femal e entertain er that nigh t for fail ure to conspicu ously display her personal entertainer license. 3
The police went back to Bunny ’ s on September 10, 2021. The undercover police officer dis c overed the same t ype of activiti e s that he ha d seen dur ing t h e J uly in vestigation

. Th ese included the pur chase and con sum ption of alcohol and the same type of entertain ment

. The undercover officer also propositioned an
entertainer for sex and they quickly agr e e d on a price for the act. The officer explained that the entertainer was not reluctan t , an d it was an easy transaction to

arrange

. The entertainer was ar rested and ch arged with prostitu tion. The
in vestigators also found eight under a g e e ntert ain ers that n ight. The club man ager

was ar rest ed for harmful em ploym en t of a min or.

Inves tigators also contacted a representative of the own er of the property
, Daniel Greenberg

. Greenberg told the p o lice they would need a “ gr a nd jury

2 The law changed in the summer of 2021 to requ ire all workers insid e a sexual ly oriented business to be at least 2 1 yea rs of age. The police disco ver ed several entertainers were 20 years old on July 27, 20 21.

3 If a busine ss is operating as a se xually oriented business, the bu sine ss mu st obtain a
se xu ally orien ted business license and all entertainers need to obtain and wear an identi fication badge.4

s u bpoena ” if the police wanted a c opy of the lease agreem e nt. The police obtained
the subpoena and served it on Greenberg during a meeting at Greenberg ’ s office on October 20, 2 020. Greenberg tu r ned over severa l d ocuments to the poli ce , i n cluding a copy of the lease agreement. Gr eenberg to l d the police that he was willing to work with the police to do his part to reduce crime at the club location and surrounding area. Despite that assurance, as d e ta iled above, Bunny ’ s conti n ued to opera te as an unlicensed sexually oriented bu s iness after the October 20, 2020 meeting

. The police we re able to determine wh o was the “ only ow ner of
TBJNO In vestments LLC ” and t hey scheduled a meeting with him on Novemb e r 10, 2020. The polic e served 38 cit ations on the own er, Thom a s J o nes.
After the inves tigations, the Ci ty filed suit against TBJNO In vestments LLC
and 5826 Interests seeking a declaration that no one may obtain a permit to operate a sexually orien t ed business at 6213 Richmond bec ause the property d oes no t mee t the distance requirements from schools and churches. The City also sought temp orary an d permanent injunctions enjo in ing the defendan ts from operating any
business at the 6213 Rich mon d address. After conducti ng a one

- day eviden tiary
hear i ng, the trial court signed a temporary i nju nct ion against the de fendants, which
it later mod ified in an amended temporary injunction order. Among other findings,
the t rial court f

o und that TBJNO Investments, 5826 Interests , and “ the real

prope rty known as 6213 Rich mond Avenue, Houston, Harris County, Texas,
maintain a common n u isance pu rsuant to Chapter 125 of the Texas C i vil P ract ice
and Remedies Code. ” 5826 Interests th e n timely filed this interlocu tory appeal.

A NALYSIS

58 26 Int erests challenges the te mporary in j unction in four issues. We need only ad dress its first and fourt h issues because 5826 Intere sts admits in its opening
brief that the trial court ’ s ame nded te mp or ary injunction order rectified the alleged5

problems raise d in its second and third issues.

I. Sta ndard of review and appl ica ble law The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the stat us quo regarding the subject matter of the litigat ion p en ding trial on the merits. Butnaru v. Ford
Motor Co. , 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002) (op. on reh’g). Litigants are not entitled to temporary in ju nctive relief as a matter of right. Abbot t v. Anti

Defa matio n League Austin, S w

. and Texoma Regions , 610 S.W.3d 911, 916 (T ex. 2020) (p er curiam) (citing Walling v. Metcalfe , 863 S.W.2d 56, 57 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam) )

. To obtain a temporary injunction
, an applicant is not required to
establish that it will p revai l in a final trial on the merits, but must plead and prov e that it ( 1 ) has a cause of action against the opposing party; ( 2 ) has a probable right to the relief sought; and ( 3 ) faces probable im minent, and irrep arable injury in the
interim. Id. Howev er, w he n the applicant h as shown a violation of a statute that
autho rizes injunctive relief, it need not prove imminent
, irreparable injury. 8100 N. Freeway Ltd. v. City of Houston , 329 S.W.3d 858, 861 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.) (citin g But na ru , 84 S.W.3d at 210)

. The decision to grant or deny s uch r elief is committed to the trial court’s discretion, and we will uphold its ruling absent a clear abuse of dis cretion. Walling , 863 S.W.2d at 5 8

. We do not substitute our judgment for t hat of t he trial court unless the trial court’s
action wa s so arbitrary that it exceeded the bounds of reasonable discretion. Sharma v. Vinmar Int’l, Ltd.
, 231 S.W.3d 405, 419 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 200 7, no p et.)

. We view the evidence in the light most f avora ble to the trial court’s order, indulging every reasonable inference in its favor. Id. An abuse of
discretion does not exist if the trial court bases its decision on conflicting evidence.
Id. ; s ee Ab bo tt , 610 S.W

. 3d at 9 1 6 ( “ I n resolving evidentiar y mat ters, a trial court
does not a buse its discretion ‘ if some evidence rea sonably supports the court ’ s6

ruling. ’ ” ). A trial court has no discr etion in determining what the law is or in applying the la w to th e facts. Abbott , 610 S.W

. 3d at 9 1 6. Therefore , a c ourt abuses its discretion if there is a clear failure to analyze or apply the law correctly.
Id.

II. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it included 5826 Interests in the tempo rar y inj un ction.

The Civil Practi c e and Remedies Code pr ovides that “ a person who

m a i n t a ins a place to which pe rsons habituall y go for [spe cified illegal purposes] and who knowingly tolerates the acti vit y and furthermore fails to make reasonable attempts to abate t he activity main tains a co mmon nu isance

. ” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 125.0015 . The statute then lists 28 different illegal activities including discharge of a firearm in a publi c place, prostitution , employing persons younger than 2 1 y ears of age for work in a sexually oriented business, and criminal
mis chief

. 5826 I nterests argues in its first issue th at there is no evidence that it knowingly tolerated any of the illeg al activi ties specified in the common nu isance

statu te. Vi ewing t he r ecord evidence in favor of the t rial court ’ s order as we must , we disagree.

T he C ivil P racti ce and Remedies Code authorizes a suit to enjoin a common

nu i s ance aga inst “ any person who maintains, owns, uses, or is a p arty to the use of a plac e f or pu rp oses cons tituting a nuisance under this subchap ter an d may bring
an action in rem against the place itself. ” See id. at § 125.00 2(b)

. In addition,
section 125.00 4(a) provides that proof that an y of the illegal activit ies listed in
section 125.0 015 are fr equently committed at the place involv ed in the litigation, or that the place involved in the litigation is frequ ently used for any of the illegal
activities found in section 12 5.0015 , “ is prima faci e evidence that the defendant knowingly tolerat ed the a ct ivit y. ” See id. at § 125.00 4 ( a )

. 5826 In teres ts argues in7

its first issue that this presumption should apply onl y to the occupier of the premises, not to an owner

. We need not decide w heth er th e presumption found in section 125.004(a)

ap plies t o owners, because even if it does not, ther e is evidence in the rec ord that
5826 Interests , the undisputed owner of the property known as 6213 Richmond Avenue, knowingly tolerated the common nu i s ance activ it ies

. This evidence
establishes that 582 6 Intere s ts was made aw a re of the unlawful activity at 6 2 13
Richmond Avenue no later than October 20, 2020 when Houston Police officers met with Greenberg , the owner ’ s representative

. The evidence also e stablishes t ha t the i llegal acti vities continued for months after that notification o ccurred as
demonst rated through the testimony of Officer Domegas and the undercover police officers who investigated Bunny ’ s. We conclude that the evidence supports the
trial co urt ’ s d ecisio n to include 5826 Interests in its injunction order because it
kn ow ingly tolerated a common nuisance on a property i t ow ned

. See Allied Home Mortg. Capital C orp . v. Fo wler
, No. 14

- 10

- 00992

- CV, 2011 WL 2367086 , at *5 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist .] J une 9, 2011, no pet. ) (mem. op.) ( stating that a
trial court has broad discretion to determine whether th e applicant met its burden to
establish a ll requirement s for a temporary injunction) ; Sharm a , 231 S.W .3 d at 4 2 6 (stating that appellate court s defer to the trial court ’ s asses sments concerning the

w eight and credibility of the evidence offered in a temporary injunction hearing)

. We overrule 5826 I ntere st s ’ first issue on appeal.

III. The trial court did not abuse i ts discretion when it ordered that any violation of the Amended T emporary Injunction Order would result i n full closure of all defendants ’ busines s on the 6213 Richmond property.

5 826 Interests argues in its fourth issue on appeal that the tri al c o urt ab us ed
its discretion when it ordered that any violation of the Amend ed Temporary Injunction Order would result in the closure of the defendants ’ business on the8

5213 Richmond propert y. In essence, 5826 Interests a rgues that this section of t h e A men de d Temporary Injunction Order is overbroad because it potentiall y restrains
5826 Interests ’ legal activities based o n the uni lateral actions of TBJNO
I n vestments, LLC

. The c ommon nu isance statute authorize s a trial court to impose reasonab l e
requ ir em ents on the enjoined parties to prevent the use of the premises as a

nu isance pending a final trial on the merits. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 125. 0 4 5

. In the present case the trial court heard evidence that 5826
Interests knew abo u t the i lleg al activitie s of TBJNO I n vestments, LLC for months and did nothing to stop them. Based on this evid ence, the trial court exercised its discretion to impose, in the event the temporary inju nction order was v iolated, a
shu tdown order on all defendants. Thi s re medy is statutori ly a uthorized

. See id. ( listing potential remed ies in the event a temporary injunction order is violated
, including “ any other legal remedy available under the laws of the state. ” )

.

We have addressed and rejected a similar argumen t be fo re. In Sharma , we stated that

[w] hile ord inarily a temporary i njunct ion shou ld operate as a

corr ective rather than a punitive measure, when a choice must be made between a fa ilure to pro vide adequate protection of a reco gni zed legal right and the puni ti ve operation of the writ, the lat ter course must be taken. It is well se ttle d th at injunctive relief must , of

nec essity, be full and complete so that those who have acted wrongfully and have breached their fiduciary relati onship, as well as those who wi ll fully and knowingly have aided them in doing so, will be effectively deni ed the b enefits and profits f lowing from their wrongdoing.

Id. at 429 (in ternal citations and q uotation marks omitted). We conclu de the trial

co urt d id not abuse it s di scretion whe n it included the challenged rem edy in the9

Amended Temporary Injunction Ord er. 4 We over rule 5826 Interests ’ fourth issue.

C ONCLUSION

Hav ing overru led all of 5826 I n terests ’ issues necessary to resolve this appeal, we aff

irm the trial court’s Amended Temp or ary Injunction Order

.

/s/ Je rry Zimm erer Justice

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourl iot, and Zimmerer.

4 We once again note that “ the most expeditious way to obviate the hardship and discomfiture of a n unfavorable temporary inj unction order is to try the cas e on the merits and

sec ure a he aring w herein the case may be fully develope d and th e court s , both trial and appellate, may render judgments finally dispo sing of controversie s. ” S harma , 231 S.W.3d at 429, n. 16 (citing Sw. Weat her Research, Inc. v. Jones , 16 0 Tex. 104, 111, 327 S.W. 2d 41 7, 422 (1959) )

.