Opinion
05-23-00458-CV
01-24-2024
RSL FUNDING, LLC AND RSL SPECIAL-IV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellants v. RICKEY NEWSOME, Appellee
On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-14580-L
Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
RSL Funding, LLC and RSL Special-IV Limited Partnership (the "RSL Parties") bring this interlocutory appeal asserting six issues challenging the trial court's temporary injunction. In their first issue, the RSL Parties contend the temporary injunction is void because it fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
In March 2021, Rickey Newsome obtained an arbitration award in his favor against the RSL Parties. Newsome filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award in the trial court below. In response, the RSL Parties filed a separate suit in Harris County and obtained a default judgment in that court vacating the arbitration award. The RSL Parties then initiated a new arbitration proceeding in Harris County.
On April 25, 2023, the trial court signed a temporary injunction enjoining the RSL Parties from, among other things, (1) proceeding with the Harris County arbitration, (2) taking any action against Newsome in the Harris County arbitration or in any other lawsuit or arbitration proceeding relative to the issues before the trial court, and (3) initiating any new arbitration or lawsuit seeking to vacate the arbitration award pending before the trial court. Although a space was provided in the injunction order to set a trial date, the space was left blank.
A temporary injunction must comply with the requirements of Rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Qwest Commc'ns Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000); InterFirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986). Failure of the injunction order to meet the requirements of Rule 683 renders it fatally defective and void. Leighton v. Rebeles, 343 S.W.3d 270, 273 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.). Rule 683 requires a trial court in its temporary injunction order to set the cause for trial on the merits. TEX. R. CIV. P. 683. Because the order at issue did not include a date setting the case for trial, it is void and must be dissolved. Leighton, 343 S.W.3d at 273.
In an attempt to salvage the order, Newsome argues that, rather than viewing the order as a temporary injunction, we should consider it an order to stay proceedings under section 171.084 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &REM. CODE ANN. § 171.084 (stay of certain proceedings after application for arbitration). The order does not function as a stay, however. A stay operates upon the judicial proceeding itself rather than directing a party's conduct. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 428-29 (2009). Because the order here restricts the actions of the RSL Parties, it is a temporary injunction that must comply with Rule 683. See Murphy v. Nasser, 84 F.4th 288, 289 (5th Cir. 2023).
We resolve appellants' first issue in their favor. Based on our resolution of the first issue, it is unnecessary for us to address the remaining issues. We reverse the trial court's order, dissolve the temporary injunction, and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ORDERED that appellants RSL FUNDING, LLC AND RSL SPECIAL-IV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP recover their costs of this appeal from appellee RICKEY NEWSOME.