Neely, 14-07-00094-CV

Full title: IN RE CINDY D. NEELY and GEORGE R. NEELY, Relators

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Feb 8, 2007

No. 14-07-00094-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 8, 2007)

Opinion

No. 14-07-00094-CV.

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed February 8, 2007.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF INJUNCTION.

Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices FOWLER and EDELMAN.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On February 6, 2007, relators filed a petition for writ of injunction in this court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. ' 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52. In the petition, relators asked this court to enjoin the real parties in interest from enforcing the judgment in cause number 03-CV-132322, in the 400th District Court of Fort Bend County, styled Mary Ann Knezek v. George R. Neely, et al., to protect our jurisdiction over the appeal from that judgment pending in our case number 14-06-01132-CV. With their petition, relators filed a motion for expedited consideration of their petition for injunctive relief. We grant the motion for expedited consideration.

An appellate court is authorized to protect its jurisdiction by preserving the subject matter of the appeal. See, e.g., Reyes v. Atkins, 619 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1981, orig. proceeding). On the other hand, this court does not have the power to issue a writ of injunction merely to preserve the status quo pending appeal. In re Gruebel, 153 S.W.3d 686 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2005, orig. proceeding); Becker v. Becker, 639 S.W.2d 23, 24 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, orig. proceeding). Nor does this court have the power to grant a temporary injunction to prevent damage to an appellant. EMW Mfg. Co. v. Lemons, 724 S.W.2d 425, 426 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987, orig. proceeding).

As with other extraordinary writs, relators must also establish that they have no adequate remedy at law. Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989) (orig. proceeding); In re Castle Texas Prod. Ltd. P'ship, 157 S.W.3d 524, 527-28 (Tex.App. — Tyler 2005, orig. proceeding). Based upon the petition and record before us, we conclude that relators have not established their entitlement to relief. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of injunction.