Opinion
No. 04-16-00005-CV
01-29-2016
IPSECURE, INC., and Jesse A. Rodriguez, Appellants v. James E. CARRALES, Appellee
From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-CI-02257
Honorable Peter Sakai, Judge Presiding
ORDER
Appellant IPSecure, Inc. seeks to appeal the trial court's December 16, 2015 order extending the expiration date of a temporary injunction until the rescheduled trial date. 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). Section 51.014(a)(4) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides this court with appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory order that "grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. . . . ." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4).* This provision has been construed by Texas courts to allow interlocutory review of an amended 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); Toby Martin Oilfield Trucking, Inc. v. Martin, 640 S.W.2d 352, 355 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ).
Although the December 16, 2015 order recites that appellant's motion to dissolve the temporary injunction is denied, no motion to dissolve appears in the clerk's record. --------
The December 16, 2015 order granted the appellee's "Motion to Extend Deadlines of Order of Temporary Injunction." The order states that the temporary injunction order signed on September 22, 2015 shall remain in place "pending trial on the merits on April 4, 2015" [sic]. The order further states that the temporary injunction order is "modified" to require appellant to continue paying appellee's bi-monthly compensation, car payment, and dental and vision insurance "pending trial on the merits currently set for April 4, 2015" [sic]. The only modification to that obligation, contained in the original temporary injunction order, was an extension of the expiration date. Thus, the only change to the temporary injunction was an extension of its duration. When the sole modification to a temporary injunction is to extend the date until a trial on the merits can be conducted, the modification is not substantive and the interlocutory order is not an appealable order. See In re Graybar Elec. Co., No. 13-08-00073-CV et al., 2008 WL 3970865, at *11-12 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 26, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); City of Lancaster v. Tex. Motor Transp. Ass'n, Inc., No. 05-05-00169-CV, 2005 WL 2303415 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 22, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op); Ludewig v. Houston Pipeline Co., 737 S.W.2d 15, 16 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1987, no writ).
It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The briefing schedule and this court's ruling on appellant's "Motion for Emergency Temporary Stay of Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Deadlines of Order of Temporary Injunction" are suspended pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.
/s/_________
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of January, 2016.
/s/_________
Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court