Opinion
No. 11-03-00319-CV.
October 23, 2003.
Appeal from Midland County.
Memorandum Opinion
Appellees have filed in this court a motion to dismiss the appeal. Appellees argue that this court lacks jurisdiction because the October 1, 2003, order is not an appealable order. Appellant argues that the October 1, 2003, order modifies the amended temporary injunction and, therefore, is appealable pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Ahmed v. Shimi Ventures, L.P., 99 S.W.3d 682 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet'n). We disagree with appellant's contentions, find that the October 1 order is not subject to appeal, and grant the motion to dismiss.
The October 1, 2003, order granted appellees' motion to compel compliance with the March 13, 2002, amended temporary injunction. The trial court found that appellant had willfully violated the injunction by filing suit in Queensland, Australia; by unreasonably delaying the operator's request for necessary licenses, permits, and variances; and by utilizing its position as ATP lease title holder to restrict and delay exploration and development. In the October 1, 2003, order, the trial court ordered appellant to comply with the injunction by executing a joint application for petroleum lease; to execute a power of attorney authorizing appellees to deal directly with any governmental agency in Queensland and to deal directly with surface owners in order to obtain land use agreements or permits as appellees deemed necessary for exploration and development; and to refrain from pursuing any legal action other than in the Midland trial court or the Texas appellate courts. We disagree that these provisions are additional terms and requirements to the temporary injunction. We find that these provisions are the result of the trial court compelling appellant to comply with the March 13, 2002, amended temporary injunction.
Appellees' motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.