Summary
refusing to entertain request for writ of mandamus as alternative to direct appeal; "Hamilton offers no legal authority, nor have we found any, to suggest that mandamus relief may be sought alternatively in a direct appeal."
Summary of this case from Hunter v. MattaxOpinion
No. 05-11-01401-CV
06-21-2012
HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant v. ORPHAN HOUSE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Appellee
Reverse and Remand; Opinion Filed June 21, 2012.
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380-02928-2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Morris, O'Neill, and Lang-Miers
Opinion By Justice Morris
In this interlocutory appeal, Hamilton Guaranty Capital, LLC appeals a temporary injunction granted in favor of Orphan House Productions, LLC. Among other things, Hamilton contends the temporary injunction order is void on its face because it fails to meet the mandatory requirements of rules 683 and 684 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Because we conclude all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion pursuant Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47.4.
Hamilton argues the temporary injunction is void because it (1) does not state the reasons for its issuance, (2) does not include a trial date, and (3) does not fix the amount of a bond to be given by the applicant, all of which are required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 683, 684. In its appellate brief, Orphan House acknowledges that the order fails to meet the requirements of rules 683 and 684. It argues, however, that the requirements may be met through amendment of the order. Orphan House has cited no authority, nor have we found any, that supports its position. The requirements of rules 683 and 684 are mandatory and must be strictly followed. Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp. 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam). When a temporary injunction does not meet the mandatory requirements of rules 683 or 684, it is void. See id. Because the temporary injunction order before us does not comply with rule 683 and 684, we conclude that it is void and must be dissolved. In light of our conclusion, we need not reach appellant's other issues challenging the temporary injunction order.
The entire text of the temporary injunction order before us is as follows:
ORDER GRANTING TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
On July 29, 2011 the Court considered Plaintiff's Application for Temporary Injunction. The Court considered the application for Temporary Injunction and determined that same should be GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, until further notice and/or order from this Court, Defendant Ferguson Law Group, P.C. ("Ferguson"), is enjoined from distributing the $200,000.00 that Plaintiff tendered to Ferguson prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
SIGNED and ENTERED on Sept. 29, 2011
Quay Parker
JUDGE PRESIDING
In addition to requesting that we issue a judgment dissolving the temporary injunction, Hamilton also seeks an order compelling the return of funds deposited into the registry of the court. In a temporary restraining order signed on July 15, 2011, the trial court ordered Ferguson Law Group, PC to deposit the funds. Because temporary restraining orders are not appealable orders, the issue of whether Hamilton is entitled to such relief is not properly before us in this interlocutory appeal. See In re Office of Attorney Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (temporary restraining orders are not appealable). Alternatively, Hamilton requests that we issue a writ of mandamus ordering the funds in the registry of the court returned to Ferguson. Hamilton offers no legal authority, nor have we found any, to suggest that mandamus relief may be sought alternatively in a direct appeal. A petition for writ of mandamus is an original proceeding governed by different rules than those governing direct appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 52; Pinnacle Gas Treating, Inc. v. Read, 13 S.W.3d 126, 127 (Tex. App.-Waco 2000, no pet.). We therefore will not entertain the request.
We reverse the trial court's temporary injunction order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS
JUSTICE
111401F.P05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
HAMILTON GUARANTY CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant
V.
ORPHAN HOUSE PRODUCTIONS, LLC, Appellee
No. 05-11-01401-CV
Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court of Collin County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 380- 02928-2011).
Opinion delivered by Justice Morris, Justices O'Neill and Lang-Miers participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, we REVERSE the trial court's order granting temporary injunction dated September 29, 2011, DISSOLVE the temporary injunction, and REMAND this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. It is ORDERED that appellant Hamilton Guaranty Capital, LLC recover its costs of this appeal from appellee Orphan House Productions, LLC.
Judgment entered June 21, 2012.
JOSEPH B. MORRIS
JUSTICE