Huynh v. Blanchard

694 S.W.3d 648

Steve HUYNH, Individually; Yvonne Huynh, Individually; Huynh Poultry Farm, LLC d/b/a Steve Thi Huynh Poultry Farm d/b/a Huynh Poultry Farm; T & N Poultry Farm, LLC; Thinh Bao Nguyen, Individually; Timmy Huynh Poultry Farm; Timmy Huynh, Individually; and Sanderson Farms, Inc., Petitioners,

v.Frank BLANCHARD, Angelia Snow, Tanya Berry, Kimberly Riley, John Miller, Amy Miller, Chad Martinez, Emily Martinez, Mersini Blanchard, Malakoff Properties, LLC, and Ronny Snow, Respondents

No. 21-0676

Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued October 2, 2023

OPINION DELIVERED: June 7, 2024

On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth District of Texas

James D. Bradbury, Courtney Cox Smith, for Amici Curiae Texas Association of Dairymen, Texas Poultry Federation, Texas Cattle Feeders Association, Texas Broiler Council, Texas Farm Bureau.

Christy Hester, Ben Taylor, Richard Mann, Ted B. Lyon Jr., Mesquite, David E. Dobbs, Allen F. Gardner, Tyler, Kasey Chester, William Davis, for Respondent Snow, Ronny.

M. Keith Dollahite, Tyler, Philip W. Johnson, Kristy Blanchard, Carl Barrett Thomas, for Respondents Blanchard, Frank, Malakoff Properties, LLC, Blanchard, Mersini.

Wallace B. Jefferson, Austin, Joseph D. Schroeder, Paul D. Clement, Rachel Anne Ekery, Houston, Christopher Daniel Tinsley, Athens, for Petitioners Timmy Huynh Poultry Farm, Nguyen, Thinh Bao, Sanderson Farms, Inc., T & N Poultry Farm, LLC, Huynh Poultry Farm, LLC, Huynh, Yvonne, Huynh, Timmy.

Joseph D. Schroeder, William Ross Forbes Jr., Wallace B. Jefferson, Austin, Christian S. Daniel, Paul D. Clement, Rachel Anne Ekery, Houston, Christopher Daniel Tinsley, Athens, Erin E. Murphy, Houston, for Petitioner Huynh, Steve.

Justice Busby delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justice Lehrmann, Justice Boyd, Justice Devine, Justice Blacklock, and Justice Young joined.

This is a nuisance suit brought by neighbors of two poultry farms located on a single tract of rural land in Henderson County, southeast of Dallas. A jury found that odors from the farms are a temporary nuisance, which is unchallenged here, and the trial court granted permanent injunctive relief that effectively shuts down the farms.

The farm owners and operators challenge the injunction on appeal, raising three issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding imminent harm; (2) whether equitable relief was unavailable because damages provide an adequate remedy; and (3) whether the scope of the injunction is overly broad. Although we reject the first two challenges and thus uphold the trial court’s authority to grant an injunction, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in crafting the scope of that injunction, which is broader than necessary to abate the nuisance. We therefore reverse in part and remand for the trial court to modify the scope of injunctive relief.

Background

Petitioner Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a poultry producer that partners with local farmers and growers—such as fellow petitioners Steve Huynh, Yvonne Huynh, Timmy Huynh, Thinh Bao Nguyen, Huynh Poultry Farm, LLC, and T & N Poultry Farm, LLC (collectively, "the Growers,"¹ and, together with Sanderson, "Defendants")—to raise broiler chickens destined for store shelves and family tables. Although Sanderson owns the chicks taken to the farms to grow into chickens, the Growers own and largely operate the farms at issue, which are near Malakoff, Texas.

Respondents are eight owners of land near the farms (the "Neighbors") who sued Defendants for nuisance in May 2017. According to the Neighbors, the sources of the odors never stopped operating, fetid odors were persistent, and the risk of those odors suddenly appearing destroyed their ability to plan and enjoy outdoor activities, forcing them inside their homes.² Several of the Neighbors testified in detail about how the horrible odors made them physically ill, spoiled family activities, and destroyed their use and enjoyment of their properties. By the time of trial, the Neighbors had recorded hundreds of odor events on their properties in odor logs, and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") had separately documented odor conditions as well as hundreds of complaints from residents in the area, including the Neighbors.

The facts in the record are important to our review of the trial court’s determination of imminent harm, which was necessary for an injunction to issue in the first place, as well as our review of that court’s balancing of the equities for and against enjoining Defendants’ continued operations. We accordingly recount the facts in some detail in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and the discretionary aspects of the trial court’s rulings.

A. Defendants’ business arrangements

Under its Broiler Growing Program, Sanderson partners with local growers who raise Sanderson’s chicks until they are ready to be collected and sold. Sanderson must approve the property where its growers operate, and its contracts are contingent on the growers meeting certain requirements, including timely constructing the chicken barns and obtaining TCEQ approval of certain permits and documents needed to operate the farms.

Sanderson became interested in having more poultry farms close to one of its existing processing facilities in Palestine, Texas.³ It decided to locate the new farms in Henderson County, where some surrounding properties are likewise used for agriculture and other husbandry operations, though at a smaller scale.

Steve Huynh has owned and operated chicken barns in partnership with Sanderson since 2002. Sanderson’s representatives met Steve at a proposed Henderson County site in May 2015 and, with Sanderson’s approval, Steve purchased 230 acres in his name as sole owner. Steve then leased about half of the property to his son, Timmy Huynh, and about half to his cousin, Thinh Nguyen.

In 2016, Sanderson signed fifteen-year Broiler Production Agreements with Huynh Poultry, LLC, with Timmy as guarantor, and T & N Poultry, LLC, with Thinh as guarantor. Steve and his wife Yvonne Huynh own seventy-five percent of both Huynh Poultry and T & N Poultry, while Timmy owns twenty-five percent of Huynh Poultry and Thinh owns twenty-five percent of T & N Poultry. Each LLC’s agreement with Sanderson contemplated the construction and operation of a farm consisting of eight chicken barns on each leased parcel, for a total of sixteen adjacent barns at the same address. Although Timmy and Thinh had little to no experience raising chickens, Sanderson approved them as growers on the proposed farms, with the understanding that Steve and Yvonne would be the ones running the day-to-day operations of the farms.

B. The Growers’ misrepresentations

The record shows that the Growers’ efforts to establish and fund their large poultry operations included several misrepresentations, which allowed them to evade state and federal regulatory requirements that would normally help protect neighboring property owners from the nuisance conditions at issue.

First, before commencing operations, the Growers had to obtain approval from two state agencies—the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board and the TCEQ—to locate and operate the two farms on the property.⁴ The Water Code charges the agencies with establishing factors "to determine whether a persistent nuisance odor condition is likely to occur when assessing the siting and construction of new poultry facilities." Tex, Water Code § 26.302(b-2). The agencies’ regulations identify six "[f]actors that are considered likely to create a persistent nuisance odor," 31 Tex. Admin. Code § 523.3(j)(3)(A), any one of which precludes the Board from certifying a water quality management plan "unless the facility provides an odor control plan the [TCEQ] determines is sufficient to control odors." Id. § 523.3(j)(3).

Each LLC began this approval process by submitting its own "Poultry Site Assessment Initial Questionnaire,"⁵ which required the Growers to answer, among other questions, whether there are "any neighbors currently within one quarter of one mile of the facility," whether there are "any neighbors between one quarter and one half of one mile in the prevailing wind direction of the facility," and whether "the facility [will] house more than 225,000 birds." The term "neighbor" includes not only nearby residences, but also "other poultry farm[s] under separate ownership." Id. Because each question addresses one of the factors that the Board and the TCEQ have determined by rule are "likely to create a persistent nuisance odor and will require the proposed facility to submit an odor control plan," id. § 523.3(j)(3)(A), the instructions for the questionnaires point out that "[i]f the answer to any of [the questions] is yes, the facility is likely to cause a persistent nuisance odor" and additional requirements need to be met.

Although the Growers accurately indicated that each facility would house more than 225,000 total birds, the trial court found in issuing its injunction that the Growers’ questionnaire responses also contained misrepresentations—a finding Defendants do not challenge in this Court. Evidence showed that these misrepresentations included: (1) indicating there were no neighbors within one-quarter mile of the proposed facility; (2) indicating there were no neighbors between one-quarter and one-half mile downwind of the proposed facility; and (3) representing that the property contained two separate farms, each controlled by different LLCs, even though the farms would be located immediately adjacent to each other and constituted a single operation. See id. § 523.3(b)(7)(A), (j)(1).

According to the governing regulations, accurate answers would have required either that "the facility provides an odor control plan the [TCEQ] determines is sufficient to control odors," or that "each neighbor within one half of one mile of the proposed facility provides a consent form properly signed by...