Request to impose sanctions in piñata store case denied.
Judge says Jumpolin owners had not filed required pleadings.
A district judge Thursday denied a motion to impose sanctions or to find in contempt of a construction ban the owners of the land where an East Austin piñata store formerly stood.
District Judge Amy Clark Meachum said lawyers for Sergio Lejarazu, whose piñata store at 1401 E. Cesar Chavez St. was demolished in February on the orders of the landowners, had not filed the required pleadings to impose sanctions on the defendants and had failed to follow due process procedures, such as serving notices, for finding them in contempt.
“I can’t just reach out with a fist and force people to do things because it’s the right thing,” Meachum said. “You just do not have the required pleadings on file to get that relief.”
In February, landowners Jordan French and Darius Fisher ordered the piñata store demolished after they said Lejarazu had failed to pay rent and violated other parts of the lease agreement. Lejarazu, who said he had proof he had paid rent on time and had complied with the lease, filed suit in Travis County court seeking reparations for the damages they had incurred since the destruction of their shop.
In March, a district judge approved a temporary injunction on the site that ran
through July 20. The court order banned construction or other alterations to the site where the piñata store had previously stood.
In June, the landowners rented 95 Navasota St., a neighboring property, to the owners of the Blue Cat Café, a new business that is set to open Oct. 16. That property lies on the same lot, just south of where the piñata store used to stand.
Lejarazu’s lawyer, Adam Bernhard, argued that French and Fisher had violated the injunction by altering the lot Lejarazu used to work out of and by placing construction materials on it in preparation for the new business, as well as by laying down a concrete slab that they argued crept into the Cesar Chavez property.
Lessie Fitzpatrick, French’s attorney, argued that the injunction was void because the Lejarazus had stopped paying rent on the property when it was filed and had no property rights to it. Wallace Smith, who is representing Fisher and the rest of the parties in the lawsuit, argued there was no written record of a clear delineation of the two properties and that all the work done on the property had been done on 95 Navasota.
“There’s no testimony that anybody that’s a defendant on this case was intentionally trying to violate a court order,” Smith said.
Meachum rejected Fitzpatrick’s argument that the injunction was void but ruled that contempt was not on the table because it required strict adherence to due process, which had not been met. Another issue, she said, was that the injunction lacked specificity and finding someone in contempt requires a high burden.
“To proceed on contempt for violating it on (the) small basis that you present that it was over the line, you just don’t have enough,” Meachum said.
In order for any sanctions to be issued, Lejarazu’s lawyers would have to file for another temporary injunction, Meachum said.
Bernhard said after the hearing that he had not determined whether he would file another motion for a temporary injunction before the trial date on Dec. 14. He added, “We are all just ready for the trial.”
Meachum’s rulings were a blow to Sergio and Monica Lejarazu, who have not been able to find a new location for their business and are working out of a friend’s store part time and also taking orders at home.
Defense lawyers also filed a motion to get rid of a public notice currently on the Cesar Chavez property that alerts people that it is part of ongoing litigation. Meachum did not rule Thursday on the motion and took it under advisement. By law, she must rule on that motion no later than 90 days after its submission.