1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## CO URT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TO F T E XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 4 4 0 - CV DE S T R UC T OR S , I NC . AP P E L L ANT V . C I TY O F FOR EST H I LL A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 352ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I . I NT R ODU CT I ON I n t hree i ssues, A ppel l antD est r uct ors, I nc. appeal s t he t r i al cour t ’ s order grant i ng A ppel l ee C i ty of ForestH i l l ’s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on. W e m ust det er m i ne w het her

t he tr i al co urtha d s ubj ec t - m at t er j ur i sd i ct i on t o e nj oi n t he enforcem ent of t he m uni ci pal ordi nance at i ssue. Becau se w e hol d t hat i tdoes n o t , we a f

f i r m.2 ... The ordi nan ce defi nes a com m erci al m ot or veh i cl e as “any m ot or

veh i cl e d es i gne d or

us ed for

t he t rans po r t at i on of prope rty, noti ncl udi ng a pas se nge r

bus , pa ss eng er

au t om obi l e, m ot orcyc l e, panel de l i ver y t r uck , or pi c k up t r uc k . ” F ore s tHi l l , Te x. , Cod e § 12 6- 211. 2 I I . B AC K GR OUN D D e s tru c to rs o p e ra te s c o n c re te a n d a s p h a l t re c y c l i n g p l a n ts . D e s tru c to rs accept s t he m at er i al s for free from i ndep enden tco nt ract or haul i ng com pani es h i red b y g o v e rnm e n tal en ti ti e s. D e stru c to rs the n c rus h e s a n d s e l l s th e co n c rete a n d a s p h a ltt o c it ie s , c o u n t ie s , t h e T e x a s D e p a rt m e n to f T ra n s p o rt a t io n , a n d o il a n d g a s c o m p a n i e s fo r u s e i n n e w ro a d a n d d ri l l i n g p a d s i te fo u n d a ti o n s . A . The C i ty’ s Tr uck R oute O rdi nances I n 1 97 6, t he C i ty adop t ed an ordi nance desi gnati ng t hree t r uck routes w i t hi n t he c i ty l i m i t s . F ore s tHi l l , Te x. , Cod e § 12 6- 212( b) ( Nov e m be r 6, 20 07 ) . A si de from t hese desi gnated t r uck routes , the C i ty prohi bi t s com m erci al m ot or vehi cl es 2 from us i ng a res i den t i al s t ree tw i t houtei t her ( 1) a poi ntof o r ig in o r d e s ti n a ti o n w i th i n th e C i ty ; o r (2 ) a C i ty -i s s u e d p e rm i t. I d. § § 126- 21 2(a) , 12 6- 21 6– 21 8. The C i ty’ s m uni ci pal code prohi bi t s a “ com m erci al m ot or v e hi c l e , t r uc k t ra c t or , t ra i l e r , o r s e m i t ra i l e r ” w e i gh i ng m ore t ha n 72, 000 p o u n d s fro m re c e i v i n g a p e rm i t. I d. § 12 6- 278. B. Dest r uct ors’ Recy cl i ng Pl ant O n O ct ober

27 , 20 08 , D est r uct ors l eased approxi m at el y 15 . 5 acres j ust out si de t he C i ty’ s ea st er n bou nda r y, en t i rel y w i t hi n t he C i ty of Fort W ort h, an d3 ... Th e C i ty’ s east er n bou ndary i s t he east er n edge of t he ri g h t- o f - w ay

o f A n g l i n D ri v e .

4 ... In i t s se con d a m end ed pl ea di ng, D es t r uct ors doe s noti ndi ca t e t he a p p ro x im a t e w e ig h to f v e h ic le s u s in g A n g lin D r iv e t o p ic k u p c r u s h e d a s p h a lt and co ncret e from t he fac i l i ty. 3 began operat i ng a concret e an d asphal trecycl i ng faci l i ty. The pl anti s access ed by E sc o D r i ve or

Free m an D r i ve— t he tw o road s for m t he “F ree m an- Es co Loo p” w it h in t h e F o rt W o rt h c ity lim it s . A c c e s s t o t h e F re e m a n -E s c o L o o p is a v a ila b le onl y vi a Angl i n Dr i ve, a res i den t i al st ree t ent i rel y l oca t ed i n t he C i ty, 3 s out h of t he C i ty’ s des i gna t ed t r uck rout es . T he t r uck s us i ng Angl i n Dr i ve t o de l i ver t he used concret e and as phal tt o D est r uct ors’ faci l i ty w ei gh app roxi m at el y f i ft een t ons and t ypi cal l y haul a m i n i m um of tw ent y- f i ve t ons per l oad— for

a t ot al approxi m at e w ei ght of 80 , 00 0 p oun ds. 4 C . The C i ty Enforces O rdi nance W it h in fo u r d a y s o f o p e n i n g i ts fa c i l i ty , a t l e a s t tw e l v e tru c k d ri v e rs del i ver i ng us ed con cret e a nd a sp hal tt o D est r uct ors’ pl antrec ei ved ci t at i ons fro m t h e C ity ’s p o l i c e o ffice rs fo r v i o l a ti n g th e o rd i n a n c e s . D e s tru c to rs co n t e n d s t h e o rd i n a n c e w i l l p u t i t s p l a n t o u t o f b u s i n e s s b ec aus e t he i nde pen den tco nt rac t or t r uck dr i vers w i l l av oi d be i ng t i ck et ed by d el i ver i ng m at er i al s t o c om pet i ng c onc ret e rec ycl i ng fac i l i t i es i ns t ea d of m ee t i ng t he ordi nan ce ’ s w ei ghtl i m i trequ i rem ent s and appl yi ng and payi ng for a per m i tfrom th e C i ty .4

D . Proce dural Bac kground D e stru c to rs fi l e d su i t ag a i n st th e C i ty o n O c to b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 8 . T h e C i ty ans w ered on Oct obe r 30, 2008 . The nex tday, D es t r uct ors f i l ed i t s se con d a m e nd e d pe t i t i on a nd a pp l i c a t i on for a t e m po ra r

y re s t ra i ni ng orde r , al l e gi ng ( 1) t he C i ty i l l ega l l y t ook D es t r uct ors’ prope rty w i t hout com pen sa t i on, vi ol at i ng t he Texa s Pr i vat e Real Prope rty Ri ght s Pres er vat i on Act ; ( 2) i nve rse co nde m nat i on; (3 ) n u i s a n c e ; a n d (4 ) e q u a l p ro te c ti o n . Th e Ci ty f i l e d a pl ea to t he j ur i s di c t i on a s s e rt i ng t hre e g rou nd s : ( 1) D es t r uct ors fai l ed t o e xha us tal l ad m i ni st rat i ve rem edi es be fore s ee ki ng i nj unc t i ve rel i ef; ( 2) a ci vi l co urtha s no j ur i sd i ct i on t o rend er nake d de cl arat i ons of “ r i ght s, st at us or

ot her l ega l rel at i ons hi ps ar i si ng under a pena l s t at ut e; ” and (3 ) D e s tru c to rs fa i l e d to a ffir m a ti v e l y a l l e g e fa c ts s h o w i n g a n i rre p a ra b l e h a rm to a v e s te d p ro p e r t y r ig h t. A fte r a h e a ri n g , th e tri a l c o u rt g ra n te d th e C i ty ’s p l e a b y w r i t t en order w i t hou tspeci f

yi ng t he groun d on w hi ch t he pl ea w as g ra n te d . I I I . DI S CU S S I ON O n a ppe al , D es t r uct ors con t end s by i t s f i rstan d fourt h i ss ues t hatt he t r i al cour ter red by grant i ng t he C i ty’ s pl ea t o t he j ur i sdi ct i on because i thas a ves t ed prope rty i nt eres tt hati s t hrea t ene d by i r repa rabl e h ar m . By i t s se con d i ss u e , D e stru c to rs c o n te n d s the re w a s n o ad m i n i strati v e p roc e d u re fo r i t t o fo l l o w b e fo re fi l i n g s u i t a g a i n s t th e C i ty . B y i t s t h ird is s u e , D e s tru c to rs5

contends t he t r i al cour ter red by grant i ng t he pl ea because t he C i ty’ s ordi nance i s pree m p ted by Tex as l aw , voi d, and unco nst i t ut i onal under t he T exas C o n s ti tu ti o n a n d U n i te d S ta te s C o n s ti tu ti o n . B e c a u s e t h e y a re d i s p o s i ti v e , w e address D est r uct ors’ fi rstan d four t h i ssues, co nt endi ng t hatthe t r i al co urter red b y g ran ti n g the p l e a to th e j u ri sd i c ti o n o n the g rou n d tha t D e stru c to rs fai l e d to a ss e rti rre p a rab l e h a rm to a v e ste d p rop e rty i n tere st. A . St andard of

Rev i ew W het her

t he t r i al cour t has subj ect - m at t er j ur i sdi ct i on i s a quest i on of l aw w e re v i e w d e n o v o . Tex. N at ural Res . Conse r vat i on C om m ’ n v. I T- D avy , 74 S . W . 3d 84 9, 85 5 (Tex . 20 02 ) . A p l ea to t he j ur i sdi ct i on i s a di l at ory pl ea t hat c h a l l e n g e s th e tri a l c o u rt’s s u bj e c t-m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n . B l a n d I n d e p . S c h . D i st. v. Bl ue, 34 S. W . 3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000 ) . I ti s us ed t o de feata ca us e o f a c ti o n w i th o u t re g a rd to w h e th e r th e c l a i m s a s s e rte d h a v e m e ri t. I d. A nal ys i s of w het her a t r i al cou rt has aut hor i ty t o dec i de a ca se begi ns w i t h t he pl ai nt i f

f’ s l i ve pl eadi ngs. See Tex. D ep’ t of Par ks & W i l dl i fe v. M i rand a , 133 S . W . 3 d 217 , 226 (Tex. 2004 ) . The pl ai nt i f f ha s t he burden of al l egi ng fact s t hataf f i r m at i vel y est abl i sh t he t r i al cour t ’ s subj ect - m at t er j u ri s d i c ti o n . Tex. A ss ’ n of Bus . v. Tex. A i r

Cont rol Bd. , 852 S. W . 2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993 ) . W e c ons t r ue t he pl ea di ngs l i beral l y i n favo r of t he pl ai nt i f

f, l ook t o t he pl e a d e r’ s i nt ent , and acceptt he pl eadi ngs’ fact ual al l egat i ons as t r ue. M i rand a , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d a t2 2 6 . W h e n t h e t r ia l c o u rt d o e s n o t s p e c if y t h e b a s is6

fo r i t s r u l i n g , w e m u s t a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s j u d g m e n t i f a n y o n e of t he t heor i es advanced i s m er i t or i ous. See W . I nvs . , I nc . v. U rena , 162 S. W . 3d 547 , 550 (Tex. 2005 ) . To preva i l on a ppe al , t hen , D es t r uct ors m us ts how t he t r i al courtco ul d notprope r l y grantt he pl ea t o t he j ur i sd i ct i on on an y of t he g ro u n d s a s s e rte d b y th e C i ty . See St ar Tel egram , I nc . v. D oe , 915 S. W . 2d 4 7 1 , 4 7 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ). B . A n a ly s is D es t r uct ors con t end s t hatt he t r i al co urtha s su bj ec t - m at t er j ur i sd i ct i on t o de t er m i ne w het her t he C i ty’ s pen al ordi nan ce i s unc ons t i t ut i ona l beca us e t he o rd i n a n c e th re a te n s i rre p a ra b l e i nj u ry to D e s tru c to rs ’ v e s te d p ro p e rty ri g h ts . 1. C i vi l Tr i al C our tH as N ar row Jur i sdi ct i on O ver C r i m i nal Stat ut es Beca us e Te xas has a bi furca t ed sy st em of cr i m i nal an d c i vi l j ur i sd i ct i on, t he m ea ni ng a nd v al i di ty of a pena l s t at ut e o r ordi nan ce s houl d ordi nar i l y be det er m i ned by cou rt s exe rci si ng c r i m i nal j ur i sd i ct i on. S tat e v. M oral es , 869 S. W . 2d 941, 945 (Tex. 1994 ) . How eve r , an eq ui ty c ourtpos se ss es a nar row j ur i sdi ct i onal pow er

t o deci de a m at t er

regardi ng a cr i m i nal st at ut e: A ci vi l co urtha s j ur i sd i ct i on t o de cl are c ons t i t ut i ona l l y i nva l i d a nd e njo in t h e e n fo rc e m e n to f a c r im in a l s t a t u t e o n ly w h e n (1 ) t h e re is evi den ce t hatt he st at ut e a ti ss ue i s unc ons t i t ut i ona l l y ap pl i ed by a ru l e , p o l i c y , o r o th e r n o n c ri m i n a l m e a n s s u bj e c t to a c i v i l c o u rt’s e q u i ty p o w e rs a n d ir rep a rab l e inj u ry to p rop e rty o r p e rso n a l ri g h ts i s th rea ten e d , o r ( 2 ) th e e n fo rce m e n t of a n u n c o n sti tu ti o n a l sta tu te t hreat ens i r reparabl e i nj ury t o proper ty r i ghts .7

I d. a t 9 4 2 ; C i ty of A rgyl e v . Pi erce , 2 5 8 S .W .3 d 6 7 4 , 6 8 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.). H ere, t he C i ty’ s ordi nan ce s m ak e i tunl aw ful t o ope rat e a ny t r uck or com m erci al m ot or

vehi cl e “on a publ i c st reeti n [ ForestH i l l ] w i t hou ta busi ness d e sti n a ti o n o r po i n t of b u sine s s o ri g i n w i th i n the co rpo rate l i m i ts o f t h e city exce ptu po n s t re e t s d e s i gn a t e d a s t r uc k rou t e s o r c om m e rc i a l d e l i ve r

y routes

. . . . w i t houtf i rstobt ai ni ng a [ C i ty] pe r m i tt o do so . ” Fores tH i l l , Tex. , Code §§ 12 6- 212, 126- 216— 217, 126- 271, 126- 273 . B e c a u s e o f th e te rm “unl aw ful , ” and t he aut hor i ty grant ed t o t he C i ty’ s pol i ce depar t m entt o enforce th e o rd in a n c e , th i s i s a p e n a l o rd i n a n c e . I d. § 1 2 6 -2 4 6 ; se e M or row v. Truckl oad Fi rew or ks, I nc. , 230 S. W . 3d 232, 237 (Te x. App . — Ea s t l a nd 2006 , no pe t . ) (f i ndi ng a pe nal o rdi nan ce ex i st s w hen no a nci l l ar y a dm i ni st rat i ve ac t i ons , s uch as m odi f yi ng a n i ndi vi dua l ’ s sa l ar y, ca n be t ak en or

t hrea t ene d by v i o l a ti n g th e o rd i n a n c e ). 2 . J u ri sd i c ti o n O v e r C ri m i n a l S tatu tes R e q u i res H a rm to P rop e rty R i g h ts C i vi l eq ui ty c ourt s hav e n o j ur i sd i ct i on t o e nj oi n t he enf orce m entof cr i m i nal st at ut es i n t he absence of i r reparabl e h ar m to vest ed proper ty r i ghts . S ee M oral es , 8 69 S. W . 2d at9 43. Prope rty r i ght s are c rea t ed and de f i ned by s ta te l a w . R e e s e v . C ity o f H u n t e r ’s C re e k V ill. , 95 S. W . 3d 3 89, 391 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2002 , no p et . ) (ci t i ng St rat t on v . A us t i n I nde p. Sch. D i st. , 8 S .W .3 d 2 6 , 2 9 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.)). A p e rs o n ’s8

prope rty i nt eres t s i ncl ude ac t ual ow nersh i p of rea l es t at e, cha t t el s, and m one y. Id . Prope rty ow ners do no tha ve a c ons t i t ut i ona l l y prot ec t ed ves t ed r i ghtt o use re a l p ro p e rty i n a n y c e rta i n w a y , w i th o u t re s t r ic ti o n . C i ty of La M arque v. Bras key , 2 1 6 S .W .3 d 8 6 1 , 8 6 2 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (ci t i ng C i ty o f U n i v . P a rk v . B e n n e rs , 4 8 5 S .W .2 d 7 7 3 , 7 7 8 (T e x . 1 9 7 2 )); H ang O n I I I , I n c . v . G reg g C o u n ty , 893 S. W . 2d 724 , 726 (Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 19 95 , w r i tdi sm ’ d by agr . ) ( hol di ng t hatp roper ty ow ner d i d not have a vest ed p ro p e rty ri g h t i n o p e ra ti n g a s e x u a l l y -o ri e n te d b u s i n e s s o n th a t p ro p e rty ). I n C i ty of

La M arque , Bras ke y op erat ed a c ats hel t er on p rope rty s he ow ned w i t hi n 100 fee tof t hree res i den ce s. 216 S . W . 3d at8 62. The C i ty of L a M a rqu e p a s s e d a n ordi na nc e p roh i bi t i ng t he o pe ra t i on o f a k e nn e l w i t hi n 500 fe e t o f a d w e l l i n g . I d. B ras k e y so u g h t an i nj u n c ti o n fro m the tr i a l co u rtto p re v e n tt h e e n fo rc e m e n to f t h e o rd in a n c e a g a in s th e r , w h ic h s h e c la im e d w o u ld re s u l t i n h e r

fa c i l i ty b e i n g c l o s e d . I d. B e c a u s e B ra s k e y ’s a s s e rte d h a rm c o n c e r n e d a p a rt ic u la r u s e o f h e r p ro p e rty , w h ic h is n o ta c o n s t i t u t io n a lly prot ect ed vest ed r i ght, t he ci vi l t r i al court di d not have j ur i sdi cti o n to h e ar B ra s k e y ’s l a w s u i t. I d. a t 8 6 4 . D es t r uct ors at t em pt s t o di st i ngui sh t he pres entca se from C i ty of La M arque b y a rg u in g it s h o ld in g o n ly a p p lie s t o z o n in g o rd in a n c e s , n o tt ra f f ic ordi nan ce s. H ow eve r , D es t r uct ors ci t es no a ut hor i ty for i t s argum entan d w e s e e n o re a s o n t h e tw o ty p e s o f o rd in a n c e s s h o u ld b e t re a t e d d if fe re n t ly in t h is5 ... D es t r uct ors doe s not i dent i f y or ex pl ai n t he perso nal r i ght s nee di ng prot ec t i on. 9 i ns t anc e. Si m i l ar

t o Bras ke y’ s cl ai m i n C i ty of La M arque , D est r uct ors’ pl eaded i nj u ry relate s o n l y to th e p a rt i c u la r u s e o f th e l e a se d p rop e rty , a s a co n c rete rec y c l i n g p l a n t, n o t t h e ri g h t t o u se t h e p rop e rty . S u c h an all e g a ti o n i s n o t a t hrea tof

an i r repa rabl e i nj ur

y t o a ves t ed prope rty r i ghtas i s requ i red t o grant th e tri a l c o u rt s u bj e c t-m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n . S ee M oral es , 869 S. W . 2d a t945, n .8 ; C i ty of

La M arque , 2 1 6 S .W .3 d a t 8 6 4 . C i t i ng P a ss e l v . F o rtW o rt h In d e p . S c h . D i st. , D est r uct ors cont ends t hat th e tr i a l co u rth a s j u ri sd i c ti o n to p rote c t i ts p e rso n a l ri g h ts 5 fro m th e o rd i n a n c e ’s unc ons t i t ut i ona l ap pl i ca t i on. 440 S. W . 2d 61 ( Tex. 196 9) . I n Passel , i nj unc t i ve rel i e f w a s s o u g h t so l e l y to p rote c t p e rso n a l ri g h ts— th e ri g h t o f free a n d p ri v a te as so ci at i on— by p rev ent i ng a dm i ni st rat i ve enf orce m entof

an ad m i ni st rat i ve re g u l a ti o n a d o p te d fo r th e p u rp o s e o f i m p l e m e n ti n g a s ta tu te . I d. a t 6 4 . In M oral es , t he Texa s Suprem e C ourtcl ar i f i ed i t s hol di ng i n Passel , sta ti n g tha t a tr i a l co u rtm a y h a v e su bje c t- m a tter j u ri sd i c ti o n an d g ran t an i nj u n c ti o n to prot ec tpe rso nal prope rty r i ght s w hen a pl ai nt i f f co m pl ai ns ab outa r ul e and do e s n ots e e k a na k e d de c l a ra t i on of a pe na l st a t ut e ’ s unc on s t i t ut i on a l i ty. 869 S. W . 2d at946. Here, D es t r uct ors i s notat t em pt i ng t o preve nt enf orce m entof an adm i ni st rat i ve regu l at i on or r ul e; rat her i t i s se ek i ng a na ke d de cl arat i on of a p ena l ordi nan ce ’ s unc ons t i t ut i ona l i ty. A perso nal r i ghtcan no tuni for m l y be10

su b sti tu ted for a p rop e rty ri g h t an d the reb y ex p a n d a c i v i l co u rt ’s eq u i ty j u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r c ri m i n a l s ta tu te s o r o rd i n a n c e s . See i d. 3 . J u ri s d i c ti o n R e q u i re s th e O rd i n a n c e to O p e ra te A g a i n s t D e s tru c to rs D es t r uct ors al t er nat i vel y a rgue s t hatt he t r i al co urtha s j ur i sd i ct i on bec aus e i tw i l l ne ver be pros ec ut ed unde r t he C i ty’ s ordi nan ce an d ha s no abi l i ty t o chal l enge t he o rdina n c e i n cr i m i nal cour t . D est r uct ors ci t es C i ty of A u s ti n v . A u s ti n C i ty C e m e te ry A s s ’n for the proposi t i on t hatthere are cases i n w h i c h th e re i s n o p e n d in g o r a n ti c i p a te d p ro s e c u ti o n , b u t th a t a c i v i l c o u rt can grant an i nj ured party an i nj uncti on t o preventt he enforcem entof a penal o rd in a n c e . 2 8 S . W . 5 2 8 (T e x . 1 8 9 4 ) H o w e v e r , in C ity o f A u s t in , t he c h a l l e n g e d o rd i n a n c e o p e ra te d a g a i n s t b o th a b u s i n e s s a n d i ts c u s to m e rs . I d. H ere, t he C i ty’ s ordi nan ce d oe s notba n t he pos se ss i on or t rans port at i on of con cret e o r

as pha l tor

m ak e Des t r uct ors l i abl e f or an y c us t om er

t rans port i ng m at er i al s t o or

from D est r uct ors’ pl antw i t hou ta ci ty per m i t . M oreover , as D es t r uct ors adm i t s, t he ordi nan ce ca nnotbe en force d a gai ns ti tb ec aus e t he pl anti s not i n t he C i ty’ s l i m i t s and because D est r uct ors nei t her ow ns nor

hi res tru c k s to tra n s p o rt th e m a te ri a l s . I f a p a rty fa c e s n o p ro s e c u t io n u n d e r a cha l l eng ed ordi nan ce , t he o rdi nan ce ha s no i n t e r ro re m e ffe c t. M oral es , 869 S . W . 2d at94 4, n. 7. Because t he ordi nance i n t hi s case canno tbe enforced a g a i n s t D e s tru c to rs , C i ty of A us t i n d o e s n o t a p p l y .11

4. Dest r uct ors Fai l ed To Es t abl i sh Jur i sd i ct i on C o n stru i n g the p lea d i n g s l i b e ral l y i n fav o r of D e stru c to rs, i t fa i l e d to es t abl i sh t he ci vi l eq ui ty c ourt ’ s su bj ec t - m at t er j ur i sd i ct i on be ca us e i tdi d not i den t i f y a n i r repa rabl e i nj ur y t o ve st ed prope rty r i ght s. Dest r uct ors’ f i rstan d fourt h i ss ues are o ver r ul ed. Beca us e w e c onc l ude t hatthe t r i al co urtl ac ke d j ur i sd i ct i on a bs ent i r reparabl e i nj ury t o vest ed proper ty r i ghts , w e need not address Dest r uct ors’ se con d i ss ue t hatno a dm i ni st rat i ve proce dures ex i stf or D es t r uct ors t o fol l ow b e fo re fi l i n g s u i t a g a i n s t th e C i ty . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 4 7 .1 . A n d , b e c a u s e c iv il equi ty cour t s have no j ur i sdi ct i on t o enj oi n t he enforcem ento f cr i m i nal st at ut es i n t he absence of i r reparabl e har m t o vest ed proper ty r i ghts , w e do not reach D est r uct ors’ t hi rd i ssue t hatt he C i ty’ s ordi nan ce i s preem pt ed by T exas l aw a n d u n c o n s ti tu ti o n a l u n d e r th e s ta te a n d fe d e ra l c o n s ti tu ti o n s . See i d. ; M oral es , 8 6 9 S .W .2 d a t 9 4 3 ; C ity o f H o u s t o n v . G u t h r ie , No. 01- 08- 00712 - C V , 2009 W L 51 742 58, at* 13– 14 (Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2 009 , no p e t. ) (ho l d i n g th a t b e c a u se a l e ss e e ’s ri g h ts d o n o t ex c e e d tho se o f t h e p rop e rty ow ners, l es se es di d notha ve a c ons t i t ut i ona l l y prot ec t ed r i ghtt o us e t he prope rty i n a ny c ert ai n w ay, w i t houtres t r i ct i on, an d c oul d notes t abl i sh t he th re a t o f a n i rre p a ra b l e h a rm to a v e s te d p ro p e rty i n te re s t).12

I V. C ONC L US I ON A c c o rding l y , w e affi rm the tri a l c o u rt ’s o rde r gra n ti n g the C i ty’s p l e a to t he j ur i sd i ct i on.

A N N E GA RD N ER J U S T I C E PA N EL: GA RD N ER, W A LKER, an d M C C O Y, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a y 13, 2010