Emergency Relief: TROs and Temporary Injunctions in Texas Business Cases

When a lawsuit cannot wait

Most business lawsuits seek money for harm already done. Some seek to stop harm that is happening now: a former sales director emailing the customer list to a competitor, a managing member wiring company funds to a personal account, a vendor about to sell inventory that is subject to your lien, a competitor using a name confusingly close to yours. For those, Texas provides a two-stage emergency process under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 680 through 684: a temporary restraining order to hold the line for days, then a temporary injunction to hold it until trial.

Stage one: the temporary restraining order

A TRO is an order signed by a judge, often within hours of filing, that prohibits specific conduct for a short period. Under Rule 680 it may be granted without notice to the other side only if specific facts shown by affidavit or verified petition establish that immediate and irreparable injury will result before the adverse party can be heard, and the applicant's lawyer certifies the efforts made to give notice or why notice should not be required. The order must define the injury, state why it is irreparable and why it was granted without notice.

A TRO expires by its own terms within a period the court fixes, not to exceed 14 days. It may be extended once for a like period for good cause, or longer if the restrained party consents; subsequent extensions must be unopposed. The rule also requires the court to set the application for a temporary injunction for hearing at the earliest possible date. In Dallas County, TRO applications are presented under Local Rule 2.02 to the assigned court or the ancillary judge.

Stage two: the temporary injunction

A temporary injunction is the order that carries the parties to trial. It issues only after notice and an evidentiary hearing at which witnesses testify and documents are admitted. Under Rule 683 the order must set forth the reasons for its issuance, be specific in its terms, describe in reasonable detail the acts restrained without referring to other documents, and include an order setting the case for trial on the merits. An order missing those elements is void, and appellate courts dissolve them regularly on that ground alone.

What the applicant must prove

The Supreme Court of Texas set the test in Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002): the applicant must plead and prove a cause of action against the defendant, a probable right to the relief sought, and a probable, imminent and irreparable injury in the interim. An injury is irreparable when the injured party cannot be adequately compensated in damages or the damages cannot be measured by any certain pecuniary standard. The purpose is to preserve the status quo, meaning the last actual, peaceable, uncontested status before the dispute. The applicant does not have to prove it will win; it has to show a probable right and show that waiting for trial would cause harm money cannot fix.

In business cases irreparable injury is usually shown by loss of customer goodwill, disclosure of confidential information that cannot be recalled, dissipation of assets, or loss of control of a company. Some statutes help: the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act authorizes injunctions against actual or threatened misappropriation, and the Covenants Not to Compete Act authorizes injunctive relief to enforce a reasonable covenant. Emergency injunctions in trade secret cases and temporary injunctions in non-compete cases cover those settings.

The bond

Under Rule 684, before a TRO or temporary injunction issues the applicant must execute and file a bond, in an amount the judge fixes, payable to the adverse party and conditioned on the applicant abiding the court's decision and paying any sums and costs adjudged against it if the order is dissolved. The bond protects the restrained party against a wrongful injunction. Its amount is argued at the hearing: the restrained party points to the revenue the order will cost it, the applicant to the limited scope of the order. A business seeking emergency relief should expect to post one.

The timeline, compressed

1. Day 0. Verified petition and application filed, with affidavits and exhibits; TRO presented to the judge, often the same day.
2. Days 1 to 14. TRO in force; bond posted; defendant served; both sides take expedited discovery the court allows, often one or two short depositions and targeted document production.
3. By day 14 (or 28 with an extension). Temporary injunction hearing: live testimony, cross-examination, exhibits. It can last hours or days.
4. After the hearing. Order granting or denying the temporary injunction, with a trial setting. Either side may take an accelerated interlocutory appeal under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4), though the appeal does not delay the trial setting.
5. Until trial. The case proceeds on its normal discovery track, with the injunction in place.

The front end of an injunction case is the most intense two weeks in civil litigation. Both sides do months of work in days.

What it costs the business

Emergency relief front-loads the expense of a case. In the first two weeks the applicant pays for drafting a verified petition and affidavits, the TRO presentation, expedited discovery, hearing preparation and a contested evidentiary hearing, plus the bond premium. It also commits the company to a position in public, under oath, before the facts are fully developed. The defendant pays for the same hearing on the same compressed schedule. When the harm is real and ongoing, that cost is often the best money spent in the case, because the injunction hearing frequently settles the whole dispute; when the harm is speculative or already complete, a court will deny relief and the applicant has spent heavily to learn that. The broader budget picture is in how much a business lawsuit costs in Dallas.

Defending against a TRO or injunction

A business served with a TRO should comply with it to the letter while preparing for the hearing; violating an order the court later dissolves is still contempt. The defense at the hearing attacks each element: no valid cause of action (an unenforceable non-compete, no trade secret), no probable right (the documents were not confidential, the partner had authority), no irreparable injury (the harm is measurable in money and damages will do), or an order broader than the status quo requires. The defense also presses for an adequate bond and a prompt trial setting, and may move to dissolve or modify the order as facts develop.

Example

Suppose a Dallas logistics company's operations manager resigns on a Friday after downloading the rate sheets and the top-50 customer file to a personal drive, and starts at a competitor Monday. The company files a verified petition for trade secret misappropriation and breach of the manager's confidentiality agreement with an affidavit from its IT lead showing the downloads, and obtains a TRO barring use or disclosure of the files and requiring their return pending hearing. It posts the bond the judge sets. Over the next ten days the parties exchange limited discovery and depose the manager. At the hearing the company proves the files were kept confidential, the downloads happened and the competitor is now quoting its customers; the court grants a temporary injunction limited to the specific files and customers and sets trial. The case settles within the month, with the files returned and the manager's new employer agreeing to a monitoring protocol.

Related remedies

Where the risk is that money will disappear rather than that conduct will continue, Texas offers prejudgment attachment, garnishment and sequestration, each with its own strict requirements and bond; freezing assets before judgment explains them. Receivership is available in owner disputes where control of the company itself is at stake. Federal courts in the Northern District of Texas apply Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 to the same two-stage structure, with a 14-day TRO and a security requirement that parallels Texas practice.

Tina Wysk seeks and defends temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions for Dallas businesses in trade secret, non-compete, partnership and contract disputes, in state and federal court.