Opinion
01-23-00711-CV
10-10-2023
Ilan Investments, LLC, Adara Communities, LLC, Breckenridge Technologies, Inc., Cadman Management Services FL, LLC, and Chowdary Yalamanchili v. Nitisha Jogi
Trial court: 80th District Court of Harris County Trial court case number: 2020-44847
ORDER
Amparo Guerra Judge
Appellants, Ilan Investments, LLC, Adara Communities, LLC, Breckenridge Technologies, Inc., Cadman Management Services FL, LLC, and Chowdary Yalamanchili, have filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the trial court's October 2, 2023 order modifying an August 5, 2020 "Agreed Temporary Injunction." See West I-10 Volunteer Fire Dep't. v. Harris Cnty. Emergency Servs. Dist. No. 48, 507 S.W.3d 356, 358 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (noting that "an order that modifies a temporary injunction is the equivalent of an order that dissolves a temporary injunction and grants a new one"); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4). The trial court's October 2, 2023 order modifying the agreed temporary injunction permits appellee, Nitisha Jogi, to withdraw $45,000 from bank accounts which were frozen as a part of the agreed temporary injunction "for the exclusive purposes of her legal defense."
On October 4, 2023, appellants filed an "Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement" of the trial court's October 2, 2023 order pending this Court's consideration of the interlocutory appeal. In their motion, appellants state that this Court should exercise the authority afforded under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3 and enter an order staying enforcement of the trial court's order to "avoid the potential for irreparable harm."
In their motion, appellants represent that the underlying lawsuit was brought by appellants against appellee and Sree Hari Vemulapalli, appellee's "now ex-husband[,] for misappropriating millions of dollars belonging to [a]ppellants." Appellants further assert that early in that case, "the parties entered into an agreed Temporary Injunction . . . freezing certain accounts" of appellee and Vemulapalli. During the pendency of the underlying lawsuit, Vemulapalli "was charged by information in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas" for his alleged criminal conduct, but "absconded before his first hearing date in Federal Court." Accordingly, in the underlying lawsuit, appellants obtained "a default judgment for over $18 million against" Vemulapalli, but appellants "still have claims against" appellee "including claims for money had and received and fraudulent transfer."
Appellants argue in their motion that the "grounds for appeal include" an argument that appellee's motion to modify the agreed temporary injunction "failed to meet the standard necessary to dissolve a temporary injunction." And, a "trial court generally has no duty to dissolve an injunction unless fundamental error has occurred or conditions have changed." Appellants' motion contends that appellee failed to establish either a fundamental error occurred or changed conditions.
In response to appellants' motion for stay, appellee argues that appellants have "misapprehended]" the relevant question. Specifically, the "question is not whether the [trial court] had a 'duty' to modify the temporary injunction," but rather whether the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the agreed temporary injunction.
Appellants further argue that a stay is necessary because appellee "should not be able to obtain money that rightfully belongs to [appellants" to pay her legal fees. As noted above, appellants obtained a default judgment with respect to its claims against Vemulapalli, when he "absconded" after the criminal information was filed against him. However, the record before this Court does not reflect that any finding of liability has been entered against appellee, and appellants have not obtained any judgment against her.
Accordingly, appellants "Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement of October 2, 2023 Order Modifying Temporary Injunction" is denied.
It is so ORDERED.