Johnny Wimbrey, Wimbrey Global Inc., Wimbrey Training System, Wimbrey Worldwide Ministries, Royal Success Club LLC, and Royal Life v. WorldVentures Marketing, LLC

No. 05-19-01520-CV (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 17, 2020) (mem. op.) · Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas · December 17, 2020 · No. No. 05-19-01520-CV

Summary

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas at Dallas reviewed a temporary injunction issued against Johnny Wimbrey and affiliated entities in favor of WorldVentures Marketing, LLC. The court held that the injunction’s non-solicitation provision was moot after the contractual one-year restriction expired, while the disparagement and confidentiality provisions failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. The court reversed and dissolved the temporary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. The validity of the non-solicitation provision was moot because the contractual one-year non-solicitation period had expired and appellants had already been enjoined from recruitment efforts for at least one year.
  2. The non-disparagement provision was void because the injunction order did not explain why disparagement had to be enjoined or identify the irreparable harm that would result without the provision.
  3. The confidentiality provision was void because it failed to define, explain, or otherwise describe what constituted WorldVentures' confidential information, leaving appellants without adequate notice of the conduct restrained.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the non-solicitation portion of the temporary injunction remained a live controversy after the contractual one-year non-solicitation period had expired.
  2. Whether the temporary-injunction order complied with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 as to the non-disparagement provision.
  3. Whether the confidentiality provision complied with Rule 683's specificity and notice requirements.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (15)

  • Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002)(followed)
  • Wilson N. Jones Mem’l Hosp. v. Huff, 188 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006, pet. denied)(followed)
  • El Tacaso, Inc. v. Jireh Star, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 740, 743-45 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.)(followed)
  • Qwest Commc’ns Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 1 S.W.3d 83, 86, 88 (Tex. 1999)(followed)
  • Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Jones, 982 S.W.2d 450, 451-52 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998), rev’d, 1 S.W.3d 83 (Tex. 1999)(followed in part)
  • Republican Party v. Dietz, 940 S.W.2d 86, 93 (Tex. 1997)(followed)
  • Harbor Perfusion v. Floyd, 45 S.W.3d 713, 718 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, no pet.)(followed)
  • Rimes v. Club Corp. of Am., 542 S.W.2d 909, 912 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1976, writ ref’d n.r.e.)(followed by analogy)
  • City of Corpus Christi v. Friends of the Coliseum, 311 S.W.3d 706, 708 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2010, no pet.)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 15.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…