COURT DISSOLVES GALONSKY'S TRO ON GBIC, CEO LOZOYA

By Juan Montoya

An Associate Cameron County District Judge has dissolved the temporary injunction against the Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation, allowing the majority of the board to continue doing business and to hire its executive director.

District Judge Louis Sorola apparently agreed with the majority of the GBIC who – represented by attorney Rene Oliveira – argued that plaintiff Nurith Galonsky's petition for the TRO granted last Wednesday was misleading and fraudulent. Galonsky is a member of the board og GBIC and also its secretary.

She filed a petition for a TRO that was granted ex-parte arguing that the GBIC's bylaws did not authorize the hiring of an executive director even though there was an interim director serving when she was appointed and she had participated in the search for a permanent replacement.

A majority of the GBIC board of directors voted to hire San Antonio-based Toyota USA executive Mario Lozoya to replace interim executive director Gilbert Salinas to a five-year contract as executive director. Under the terms of the contract negotiated with GBIC chair Cesar de Leon, Lozoya will receive $225,000 a year with a $30,000 bonus after a year if he meets the benchmarks set by the board.

Oliveira argued that under the law, Galonsky's ex-parte motion for a TRO violated the Cameron County local rules hat the defendants legal representative must be notified of the proceedings and that if they did not have an attorney, that a due diligence must be made to inform them.

The Local Rule 1.3(b) states the following regarding ex parte orders: Counsel presenting any application for an ex parte order shall at the time the application is presented certify in writing to the court that:

1. to the best of his knowledge the party against -whom the relief is sought is not represented by counsel in the matter made the basis of the suit in which relief is sought; or

2. if such party is so represented by counsel, that (i) such counsel has been notified of the application and does not wish to be heard by the court thereon; or (ii) that counsel presenting the application has diligently attempted to notify such counsel and has been unable to do so and the circumstances do not permit additional efforts to give notice.

Also, the GBIC argued that "as a general rule, an applicant seeking a temporary injunction must plead and prove "(1) a cause of action against the defendant; 2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim."

Apparently, neither Galonsky nor her attorney David Willis with a supporting cast of legal eagles, convinced the court that her petition for injunctive relief had met all those criteria. (That's local blogger and disbarred attorney Robert Wightman dispensing his legal knowledge to Galonsky's supporters in the graphic at left.)

After hearing the arguments and the testimony of Galonsky (a lawyer and member of the GBIC board and its secretary) and De Leon, a city commissioner and chair of the GBIC, Sorola fended off efforts by both parties to try the case and admonished them repeatedly to focus on the question of the injunction.

In the end, he ruled Galonsky had not met the burden of proof to turn the TRO into an injunction and allowed the GBIC to continue doing business.