law-temporary-injunction

law-temporary-injunction | temporary restraining order (TRO) | temporary injunction requirements | TI standard
temporary orders appeals | accelerated i nterlocutory appeals | void orders | permanent injunctions | equitable
relief vs money damages | injunctive relief in family law cases |

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR SEEKING AND THE COURT GRANTING
TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF?

The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo pending trial, but it
is an extraordinary remedy and does not issue as a matter of right. Butnaru v. Ford Motor
Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny
a temporary injunction, and an appellate court should reverse only if it finds a clear abuse of that discretion.
Tel. Equip. Network, Inc. v. TA/Westchase Place, Ltd., 80 S.W.3d 601, 607 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2002, no pet.). We should not reverse a trial court’s temporary injunction unless it is “so arbitrary as to exceed
the bounds of reasonable discretion.” Id. We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's
order, but an erroneous application of the law to undisputed facts constitutes an abuse of discretion. Id.

ELEMENTS FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
To obtain a temporary injunction, an applicant must prove (1) a cause of action against a defendant, (2) a
probable right to the relief sought, and (3) a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru,
84 S.W.3d at 204. An injury is irreparable if there is no adequate remedy at law; if for example, a prevailing
applicant could not be compensated adequately in damages, or if damages cannot be measured by any
certain pecuniary standard. Id. The absence of any one of these elements renders an award of temporary
injunctive relief inappropriate. See id. Folicure, Inc. v Hair Club for Men, LLC (Te x.App.- Houston [1st Dist.]
Jun. 25, 2009)(Opinion by Bland)(noncompete nonsolicitation agreement enforced by temporary injunction)
(We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a temporary injunction against York,
Reynolds, Daniels and Folicure to prohibit solicitation of Hair Club’s clients. We therefore affirm the order of
the trial court.)
AFFIRM TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Panel members: Justices Keyes, Hanks and Bland
01-09-00024-CV Folicure, Inc., Mallory York, Bennetta Reynolds, Hamilton Daniels, and ALNA Holdings, L.L.C.,
d/b/a Folicure v. Hair Club for Men, LLC d/b/a for Men and Women
Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Levi J. Benton

Trial renders temporary injunction appeal moot
This is an appeal from a temporary injunction signed March 16, 2007. On July 8, 2009, counsel for appellee
advised this court that the case was tried to a jury during the month of June, 2009. Although a judgment has
not yet been signed, the parties entered a stipulation to dissolve the temporary injunction that is the
subject of this appeal. On July 1, 2009, the trial court signed an order dissolving the injunction. Therefore, the
issues in this appeal have been rendered moot.
A temporary injunction preserves the status quo pending a trial on the merits. Tex. R. Civ. P. 683.
An appeal of a temporary injunction becomes moot upon the trial on the merits or dissolution of the temporary
injunction. See, e.g., Guajardo v. Alamo Lumber Co., 159 Tex. 225, 317 S.W.2d 725, 726 (Tex. 1958); G & R
Inv. v. Nance, 588 S.W.2d 804, 806 (Tex. Civ. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.).
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed as moot.
Frick v. Total Separation Solutions, LLC (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 16, 2009)(per curiam dismissal of
temporary injunction appeal, temporary injunction moot, jury trial and stipulation to vacate TI, order entered
dissolving temporary injunction)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Brown
14-07-00290-CV F. Alan "Bud" Frick, Butler & Cook, Inc. d/b/a Butler and Cook, Inc. Butler and Cook Hydraulic
Center, Inc., B & C of Fort Smith, Inc. and John J. "Toby" Koprovic v. Total Separation Solutions, LLC
Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: L evi James Benton

Validity of Temporary Injunction

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ORDER MUST CONTAIN TRIAL DATE (TRCP 683)
Within its sole issue, the City contends that the trial court erred by failing to set a date for the trial on the
merits, rendering the temporary injunction void.

In pertinent part, rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides, "Every order granting a temporary
injunction shall include an order setting the cause for trial on the merits with respect to the ultimate relief
sought." Tex. R. Civ. P. 683. "The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed."
Interfirst Bank San Felipe v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986); see also Qwest Commc'ns
Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (citing Interfirst, 715 S.W.2d at 641). A temporary
injunction is void and should be dissolved when it does not include an order setting the matter for trial. Interfirst
Bank, 715 S.W.2d at 640-41; see also Tex. Tech Univ. v. Finley, 223 S.W.3d 510, 515 (Tex. App.--Amarillo
2006, no pet.) (declaring temporary injunction void and dissolving it for failure to include setting for trial on
merits); City of Sherman v. Eiras, 157 S.W.3d 931, 931 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2005, no pet.) (same); Kaufmann v.
Morales, 93 S.W.3d 650, 656-57 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (same).

Here, the temporary injunction does not include a date setting the cause for a trial on the merits.
The temporary injunction is, therefore, void. See Qwest Commc'ns, 24 S.W.3d at 337; Interfirst, 715 S.W.2d
at 640-41. Nationstar's sole response is that the City's challenge is not preserved for appeal because the City
did not object to the trial court complaining of the lack of a date for a trial setting. However, because the trial
court's failure to include in the injunction a date setting the case for a trial on the merits, the injunction was
void, and "defects that render an injunction order void cannot be waived." AutoNation, Inc. v. Hatfield,
186 S.W.3d 576, 581 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.).
Navasota v. NationStar Mortgage, LLC (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 9, 2009)(Alcala)
(temporary injunction void order; no trial date included in order)
REVERSE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AND REMAND CASE TO TC FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS:
Opinion by Justice Alcala
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Alcala and Hanks
01-08-00915-CV        City of Navasota v. NationStar Mortgage, LL
Appeal from 506th District Court of Grimes County
Having determined the temporary injunction is void, we need not address the City's other challenges to the
temporary injunction. We sustain the City's sole issue. Conclusion. We reverse the temporary court's order
granting a temporary injunction and remand this cause.

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION REQUIRES BOND
TDI argues that it filed a motion to modify the temporary injunction order, which was scheduled for hearing on
May 2, 2008. No subsequent or modified temporary injunction order has been filed with this Court. (1) We hold
that the January 25, 2008 temporary injunction is void because no bond was required of the applicant.
Bruns v. Top Design Inc. (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 2, 2008)
(temporary injunction order void, no bond)
REVERSE TC JUDGMENT AND RENDER JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Nuchia
Before Chief Justice Radack, Justices Taft and Nuchia
01-08-00070-CV        Dennie Bruns v. Top Design Incorporated
Appeal from 56th District Court of Galveston County
Trial Court Judge: Hon Lonnie Cox

Frick v. Total Separation Solutions, LLC (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jul. 16, 2009)(per curiam dismissal of
temporary injunction appeal, temporary injunction moot, jury trial and stipulation to vacate TI, order entered
dissolving temporary injunction)
DISMISSED: Per Curiam
Before Justices Brock Yates, Guzman and Brown
14-07-00290-CV F. Alan "Bud" Frick, Butler & Cook, Inc. d/b/a Butler and Cook, Inc. Butler and Cook Hydraulic
Center, Inc., B & C of Fort Smith, Inc. and John J. "Toby" Koprovic v. Total Separation Solutions, LLC
Appeal from 215th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: LEVI JAMES BENTON

TRIAL COURT DISCRETION | APPELLATE STANDARD OF REVIEW IN ACCELERATED TEMP. INJ. APPEAL
Whether to grant or deny a temporary injunction is a decision committed to the sound discretion of the trial
court and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of that discretion. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d
198, 204 (Tex. 2002). The Rules of Civil Procedure require that an order granting a temporary injunction set
the cause for trial on the merits and fix the amount of security to be given by the applicant. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
683, 684. "These procedural requirements are mandatory, and an order granting a temporary injunction that
does not meet them is subject to being declared void and dissolved." Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp.,
24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000); see InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641
(Tex. 1986) (stating that requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed); see
also Lancaster v. Lancaster, 291 S.W.2d 303, 308 (Tex. 1956) (holding temporary injunction void when no
bond required of applicant).

HOUSTON APPELLATE COURT CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |

CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS

HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE