Summary
holding court lacked jurisdiction where only change made to temporary injunction by subsequent order was to extend injunction's duration until new trial setting and court's order made no substantive modification to original temporary injunction
Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. ThandiOpinion
No. 05-05-00169-CV
Opinion Filed September 22, 2005.
On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 04-01508-K.
Dismiss.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, LANG-MIERS, and MAZZANT.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Appellees (plaintiffs below) sued the City of Lancaster, challenging a series of municipal ordinances restricting truck travel within the City. On December 3, 2004, the trial court entered an order temporarily enjoining the City from enforcing Truck Route Ordinance No. 2004-10-36. The December 3rd order set the lawsuit for trial on January 18, 2005, and it provided that the injunction would remain in effect "until February 3, 2005, unless the Court orders otherwise." The City did not appeal the December 3rd order granting the temporary injunction. The case was not reached for trial on January 18, 2005. On January 27, the plaintiffs below moved to extend the temporary injunction. After a hearing, the trial court granted the motion. On February 1, 2005, the trial court entered its Order Extending Temporary Injunction, ordering that:
the Temporary Inunction entered by this Court on December 3, 2004 is extended until further order of the Court. All findings set forth in this Court's Order dated December 3, 2004 are incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein.
The February 1st order also re-set the trial of the lawsuit for September 6, 2005. The City of Lancaster attempts to appeal this Order Extending the Temporary Injunction. Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal.
An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order unless a statute specifically authorizes such an appeal. Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000). A party may appeal from an interlocutory order of the trial court that "grants or refuses a temporary injunction." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon 1997). Texas courts, including this Court, have construed this provision to allow interlocutory review of an order making a substantive modification to a temporary injunction. See Currie v. Int'l Telecharge, Inc., 722 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1986, no writ) (temporary injunction modified by restricting area affected by non-competition provision); Toby Martin Oilfield Trucking, Inc. v. Martin, 640 S.W.2d 352, 355 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ) (temporary injunction modified by increasing amount of bond). In this case, however, the trial court's second order specifically referred back to all of the substantive findings in the initial order. The only change made to the temporary injunction by the February 1st order was to extend the injunction's duration until the new trial setting.
We conclude the trial court's February 1st Order Extending Temporary Injunction made no substantive modification to the original temporary injunction. Accordingly, that order falls outside the ambit of section 51.014(a)(4), and we have no jurisdiction to review it. Appellees' Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Jurisdiction is granted, and we dismiss this interlocutory appeal.