Court Opinion

ID: 9630360
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:09:17.125677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:37.520956
License: Public Domain

EVA M. GUZMAN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the majority’s disposition of five of the six issues presented on appeal; however, I respectfully disagree with the majority’s holding affirming Paragraph 2 of the injunction, which states, “No Defendant shall engage in any way in the business of purchasing, transporting, storing, marketing, selling, or trading Isoprene Monomer that is produced in Russia or Caprolactam either supplied from Mexico or Belarus or sold in China.” Because I agree with the Rew appellants that this paragraph of the temporary injunction is overly broad, I would modify this portion of the trial court’s order as to these parties. See T-N-T Motorsports, Inc. v. Hennessey Motorsports, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 18, 25 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism’d) (modifying an overly broad injunction).
The majority correctly notes that the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo of the litigation’s subject matter pending a trial on the merits. See Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex.2002). But, as we have previously stated, an injunction “may not be framed so broadly as to prohibit the enjoyment of lawful rights.” Kulkarni v. Braeburn Valley W. Civic Ass’n, Inc., 880 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th *436Dist.] 1994, no writ) (citing Hellenic Inv., Inc. v. Kroger Co., 766 S.W.2d 861, 866 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, no writ)). A temporary injunction is imper-missibly overbroad if it prohibits not only the use of confidential and proprietary information, but lawful conduct as well. See Sw. Research Inst. v. Keraplast Techs., Ltd., 103 S.W.3d 478, 482-83 (Tex.App.San Antonio 2003, no pet.).
The majority emphasizes that the Rew appellants traded no isoprene or caprolac-tam before the events underlying this litigation; however, this observation does not fully reflect the status quo ante. Before the present controversy arose between the parties, the Rew appellants had a limited legal right to engage in international chemical trading. Although the Rew appellants did not exercise that right, the right nevertheless existed, albeit within certain limits. For the purposes of this discussion, these limits were defined by the non-competition and confidentiality agreements described in the majority’s opinion and by the prohibition against the improper use of trade secrets. Accordingly, the Rew appellants could engage in international chemical trading if they acted within these boundaries. But, the temporary injunction arbitrarily replaces these contractual and common law limits with geographical boundaries, imposing barriers based on a chemical’s country of origin or sale.
The majority implies that this distinction is immaterial on the facts presented, and recites that while Togliatti was Vinmar’s only isoprene supplier, there “was also evidence that Togliatti was the only Russian manufacturer selling isoprene for export.” But, unlike the Rew appellants, the international isoprene and caprolactam markets are not bound to maintain the status quo as it existed before this controversy arose; new suppliers and customers may enter the market during the pendency of the litigation, and alternate transport and storage facilities may become available. Under the language of the injunction, the Rew appellants are not only prohibited from dealing with suppliers and customers known to the Rew appellants through the improper use and disclosure of Vinmar’s confidential information, but currently are enjoined from commerce with any iso-prene supplier in Russia, any caprolactam supplier in Mexico or Belarus, and any caprolactam purchaser in China, even if such entities are new entries in the market or are otherwise strangers to Vinmar. The injunction likewise bars the Rew appellants from purchasing from new suppliers for resale within the same country, even where Vinmar purchased chemicals solely for export. The Rew appellants are even enjoined from transporting or storing isoprene originating in Russia, caprolac-tam supplied by Mexico or Belarus, and caprolactam sold in China, even if they use methods, facilities, and supply chains never used by Vinmar.
In sum, the Rew appellants are enjoined from trading with new suppliers, establishing original supply chains, using alternative storage and transport facilities, and developing untapped markets for the sale of isoprene or caprolactam in those nations where Vinmar operates — regardless of whether such actions infringe on appellees’ rights. Moreover, the injunction does not restrict the Rew appellants’ ability to compete for only six months, as specified in the non-competition and confidentiality agreements with Vinmar, but has been in effect for over a year, and will continue until trial.
Because the injunction imposes restrictions on the Rew appellants beyond those arising from their relationship with Vin-mar and enjoins them from engaging even in lawful competition that does not involve *437the use of confidential information, I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the injunction in its current overly broad form.