Court Opinion

ID: 5076875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-10-01 11:30:24.897673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:20:43.694795
License: Public Domain

Case Number: 08-90-00038-CV 01/14/1991 Record returned to Court of Appeals 12/14/1990 MET to file reply disposed of Granted 12/12/1990 Application for Writ of Error - Disposed Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction 12/12/1990 Application for Writ of Error - Disposed Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction 08/22/1990 Petitioner's reply brief 08/09/1990 Reply filed 07/20/1990 MET to file reply disposed of Granted 07/19/1990 Case forwarded to Court 07/19/1990 No description available. 07/05/1990 Motion for Leave to file Temp. Injunction filed. 07/05/1990 Motion to Stay Filed 07/05/1990 Motion to Stay Disposed Overruled 07/05/1990 Motion for Leave to file Temp. Injunction filed. 07/05/1990 Petition for writ received 07/05/1990 mo for lv to file temporary injunction disposed Overruled 07/03/1990 Application for Writ of Error - Filed
This is an appeal from a temporary order by the district court enjoining the Housing Authority from prosecuting a forcible entry and detainer action against the Appellees in justice court.
Petitioners for the injunction contended that they are tenants of the Housing Authority, and that the Housing Authority must provide them with a grievance hearing as a part of their rental contract and mandated by 42 U.S.C.A. sec. 1437d(k) (West Supp. 1989) and 24 C.F.R. secs. 966.51-966.58 (1989) prior to eviction. They further contend that by denying them the hearing, their rights to equal protection of the law have been denied to them under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Section 966.51(a) provides that the grievance procedure may be excluded in evictions based upon a tenant's creation or maintenance of a threat to the health or safety of other tenants or Housing Authority employees.
For the district court to enjoin the exercise of the justice court's exclusive jurisdiction in a forcible entry and detainer case, there must be a showing that the justice court is without jurisdiction to proceed in the cause or the defendant has no adequate remedy at law. McGlothlin v.Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. 1984).
Any action by the district court is premature. The justice court had jurisdiction to determine the status of the litigants, whether a grievance procedure was to be allowed or if the facts of the case placed it *Page 731 
within the exclusion. There is adequate remedy at law.
The temporary injunction is dissolved.