In In re Sanchez, a plaintiff filed suit against a defendant for (1) conspiracy; (2) fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud; (3) aiding and abetting/conspiracy; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; and (5) Texas Theft Liability Act Violation related to the property. No. 14-23-00169-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1746 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 17, 2023, original proceeding). The plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order regarding real property and it expired. The plaintiff then sought and obtained a second temporary restraining order. The defendant opposed both, and filed a mandamus action regarding the second restraining order. The court of appeals explained:

Rule 680 provides in relevant part: “[E]very temporary restraining order granted without notice . . . shall expire by its terms within such time after signing, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be entered of record. No more than one extension may be granted unless subsequent extensions are unopposed.” Id. The Texas Supreme Court has held that “Rule 680 governs an extension of a temporary restraining order, whether issued with or without notice, and permits but one extension for no longer than fourteen days unless the restrained party agrees to a longer extension.” In re Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 204-05 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding). The short duration allowed by Rule 680 is “a critical safeguard against the harm occasioned by a restraint on conduct that has yet to be subject to a truly adversarial proceeding.” Id. at 206-07. Mandamus is available for temporary restraining orders that violate the time limitations of Rule 680. Id. at 207.

Id. Based on this authority, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in entering the second temporary restraining order and granted mandamus relief:

Although Judge Thornton’s order signed March 9, 2023 is not styled as a second temporary restraining order, it is undisputed that the effect on the parties is the same. “The supreme court has interpreted the requirements of Rule 680 in such a way as to not permit a party to continually request temporary restraining orders without requiring the party to meet the more stringent requirements of obtaining a temporary injunction.” In re 2500 W. Loop, Inc., No. 14-18-00770-CV, 2018 WL 4523935, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 21, 2018) (orig. proceeding). The March 9, 2023 order granting a second TRO does not comply with the requirements of Rule 680. Judge Thornton’s issuance of the March 9, 2023 TRO was an abuse of the ancillary judge’s discretion.

Id.

Tags: injunction, injunctive relief, temporary restraining order, TRO, TRO in fiduciary case
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Fowler Johnson David Fowler Johnson

[email protected]
817.420.8223

David maintains an active trial and appellate practice and has consistently worked on financial institution litigation matters throughout his career. David is the primary author of the The Fiduciary Litigator blog, which reports on legal cases and issues impacting the fiduciary…

[email protected]
817.420.8223

David maintains an active trial and appellate practice and has consistently worked on financial institution litigation matters throughout his career. David is the primary author of the The Fiduciary Litigator blog, which reports on legal cases and issues impacting the fiduciary field in Texas. Read More

David’s financial institution experience includes (but is not limited to): breach of contract, foreclosure litigation, lender liability, receivership and injunction remedies upon default, non-recourse and other real estate lending, class action, RICO actions, usury, various tort causes of action, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and preference and other related claims raised by receivers.

David also has experience in estate and trust disputes including will contests, mental competency issues, undue influence, trust modification/clarification, breach of fiduciary duty and related claims, and accountings. David’s recent trial experience includes:

  • Representing a bank in federal class action suit where trust beneficiaries challenged whether the bank was the authorized trustee of over 220 trusts;
  • Representing a bank in state court regarding claims that it mismanaged oil and gas assets;
  • Representing a bank who filed suit in probate court to modify three trusts to remove a charitable beneficiary that had substantially changed operations;
  • Represented an individual executor of an estate against claims raised by a beneficiary for breach of fiduciary duty and an accounting; and
  • Represented an individual trustee against claims raised by a beneficiary for breach of fiduciary duty, mental competence of the settlor, and undue influence.

David is one of twenty attorneys in the state (of the 84,000 licensed) that has the triple Board Certification in Civil Trial Law, Civil Appellate and Personal Injury Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.

Additionally, David is a member of the Civil Trial Law Commission of the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. This commission writes and grades the exam for new applicants for civil trial law certification.

David maintains an active appellate practice, which includes:

  • Appeals from final judgments after pre-trial orders such as summary judgments or after jury trials;
  • Interlocutory appeals dealing with temporary injunctions, arbitration, special appearances, sealing the record, and receiverships;
  • Original proceedings such as seeking and defending against mandamus relief; and
  • Seeking emergency relief staying trial court’s orders pending appeal or mandamus.

For example, David was the lead appellate lawyer in the Texas Supreme Court in In re Weekley Homes, LP, 295 S.W.3d 309 (Tex. 2009). The Court issued a ground-breaking opinion in favor of David’s client regarding the standards that a trial court should follow in ordering the production of computers in discovery.

David previously taught Appellate Advocacy at Texas Wesleyan University School of Law located in Fort Worth. David is licensed and has practiced in the U.S. Supreme Court; the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Federal Circuits; the Federal District Courts for the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Texas; the Texas Supreme Court and various Texas intermediate appellate courts. David also served as an adjunct professor at Baylor University Law School, where he taught products liability and portions of health law. He has authored many legal articles and spoken at numerous legal education courses on both trial and appellate issues. His articles have been cited as authority by the Texas Supreme Court (twice) and the Texas Courts of Appeals located in Waco, Texarkana, Beaumont, Tyler and Houston (Fourteenth District), and a federal district court in Pennsylvania. David’s articles also have been cited by McDonald and Carlson in their Texas Civil Practice treatise, William v. Dorsaneo in the Texas Litigation Guide, and various authors in the Baylor Law Review, St. Mary’s Law Journal, South Texas Law Review and Tennessee Law Review.

Representative Experience

  • Civil Litigation and Appellate Law
Read more about David Fowler JohnsonDavid's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
Related Posts
Court Reversed A Summary Judgment On Whether A Power Of Attorney Agent For A Settlor Had The Authority To Change The Designation Of A Successor Trustees In A Trust Document
October 10, 2024
Court Affirmed Order Reinstating Receivership While Case Was On Appeal
October 2, 2024
Court Affirmed A Judgment For An Estate Because The Personal Represented Participated In The Case
September 18, 2024