See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 5 1 .0 1 4 (a )( 4 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ). 1 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0036 3-CV



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
F R ED D IE R EC OR D S, IN C ., A ND F RED DIE M A RT INEZ , IND IVIDU A LL Y, A ND D /B/A

F RED DIE REC ORD S, JOIN TL Y A ND SEV ERA LL Y, A pp ellan ts,
v. RA M ON A

YA LA , A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 3 70t h Dist rict C ou rt o f H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas .



## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z This i s a n i nter loc utor

y appeal of an ant i- sui t i nju nct ion iss ued by a H ida lg o C ounty dis tr ic t c our

t i n fav or of appel lee , R amon Ay ala ( “Ay ala ”)

. By a s ing le is sue and s ev eral 1 sub- is sues , appel lan ts, Freddi e Rec ords, Inc

. and F re ddi e M arti nez , i ndi v idu all y and d/b/aM any oft he back gr ound f act s ar e t aken f r om t hi s C our t ’ s opi ni on i n a r el at ed o r i gi nal pr oceedi ng. 2 S e e In re A y a la , N o. 13- 07- 140- C V, 2007 T ex. A pp. LE X I S 3319, at * * 1- 5 ( T ex. A pp. –C or pus C hr i st i A pr
. 27, 2 0 0 7 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ) (m e m . o p .).

T he Hi dal go Count y sui t was st y l ed R am on Aya l a, I nd i v i du all y andd/ b/ a Lo s Br

avos d el

N ort e v. 3 Fre ddie Records, I nc. and Fre ddie M artinez , I ndi vi dual l y, and d/

b/ a Fre ddie R ecords, Jointl y and Sever

al l y, an d w as as s i gn ed t ri al co urt ca us e n um be r C -26 60 -06 -A i n th e 9 2 n d D i s tri c t C o u rt o f H i d a l g o C o u n ty

.

T h e fi rs t N u e c e s C o u n ty s u i t w a s a s s i g n e d tri a l c o u rt c a u s e n u m b e r 0 6 -6 2 6 3 5 -4 i n N u e c e s C o u n ty 4 C o u r t a t L a w N u m b e r 4

. W e n o te th a t th is p e tit io n is n o t i n c lu d e d in th e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , b u t i s d e s c r ib e d in In re A y a la , 200 7 T ex. App. LEX I S 3319, at * * 2- 3. 2 F r e d d i e R e c o rd s , j o i n t l y a n d s e v e r a l l y

( “ F r e d d i e ” ) , c h a l l e n g e t h e a n t i
- s u i ti n j u n c t i o n
. W e affi r m. I. Background 2 Ay ala i s a recordin g ar

ti st, and Freddi e is a record company

. Pursuantto v ar iou s agreem ent s ov er the years, the parties ha v e ha d a busin ess relation ship w here by Ayala
re cords “ m a st er

recordin g s” for F re ddi e, an d F re ddi e c onv erts thos e recordin g s i nto alb ums an d compac t dis cs for sal e and dis tr ibu ti on i n the U nit ed St ates

. In t he unde rl y ing li ti g ati on, t he par

ti es dis pute w hether

obl ig ati ons h a v e been met unde r a recordin g agreem entdate d Jan uary 4, 1995 (“ the agreeme nt”). Ay ala co ntends he has del iv ered the req uired number o f rec ordin g s t o F re ddi e, bu t t h a t h e h a s n o t b e e n p a i d c e rt a i n ro y a l t i e s a n d i n c o me d u e u n d e r t h e a g r e e me nt. On Nov ember

8, 2006, Ay ala su ed F re ddi e i n the 92nd Di str ic t C our t i n Hi dal g o Cou nty

( “t he Hi dal g o Cou nty sui t” ), seek ing a decl arator y jud g ment that he has met his rec ordin g 3 obl ig ati ons under

the ag re ement. Ay ala l ater amended h is p e ti ti on, a ddi ng ca uses of act ion for b re ach of contractand breach of f idu ci ar y duty

. On Novemb er 21, 2 006 , Freddie sued Ay ala in Coun ty Court at L aw Num ber 4 in Nue ces C ounty

( “N ueces C ounty

I” ), alle g ing that Ay ala breac hed the ag re ement by fail ing 4 to re cord the re q uired number of alb ums an d record the al bums i n a t imel y manner
. OnS e e i d

. at * 1. 5 S e e i d

. at * 4. 6 T he second N ueces C ount y sui t was st y l ed Fre ddie Martinez , I ndi vi dual l y andFreddie Records, I nc. 7 v . R a m o n A y a l a , I n d i v i d u a ll y a n dd /b /a L o s B ra v o s d e l

N o rte and was assi gned t r i al cour t cause num ber 07- 60924
- 2 i n Nueces C ount y C our t at Law No. 2.

T he agr eem ent r ecogni z es t hat Ay al a has a cont r act “ wi t h Sony R ecor d Com pany , i t s subsi di ar i es 8 o r re l a te d c o m p a n i e s i n M e x i c o .” 3 Dec ember

18, 2006, Ay ala f ile d a p le a i n abat ement i n N ueces C ounty I, bas ed on an
ass erti on that the Hi dal g o Cou nty sui t acq uired domina nt jur is dic ti on. After th e Nu e ces Cou nty C our t den ied Ay ala ’s pl ea, h e filed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus w it h thi s C our t. 5 This C our

t s tay ed th e proceed ing s i n the Hida lg o County and Nue ces County

I sui ts dur ing its conside ration of

Ay ala’s pe tition for w rit of man dam us. 6 On or aboutApr il 18, 2007 ( dur ing the sta y and thi s C ourt’s c onsi derati on of the peti ti on for w ri t of m andamus) , Freddi e f il ed a sec ond sui t in N ueces C ounty C our t atLaw Number 2, re q uest ing inju nct iv e rel ief (“ Nue ces C ounty II ”)

. I n i ts peti ti on, F re ddi e al leg ed 7 th at : ( 1) Ay al a brea c he d th e ag r ee me nt by fai l i ng to de l i v er th e r eq ui r ed nu mb er of a l bu ms under the ag re ement; and ( 2) Ay ala had re corded suff ic ien t “mast ers” to cons ti tute a new alb um and p lan ned t o del iv er them to Sony , w it hout firs t del iv er ing them to F re ddi e, as 8 required und er the a greem ent . In requesting injunctive relief , Freddie alleged tha t “Ay ala’s threatened ac ti on to del iv er the Ma ste rs to Sony

and not to F re d d ie w il l caus e [F re ddi e] ir re parabl e har m.” The N ueces C ounty II co urt g ra nted a temporar y rest ra ini ng order

on Apr il 19, 2007, and s et t he te mpora ry i nju nct ion hear ing for A pr il 30, 2007. On A pr il 24, 2007, Ay ala f il ed, in his then-pe ndi ng ori g ina l proceed ing in this C our t,
an emerg ency moti on to show caus e w hy Freddi e “s houl d not b e hel d i n c ontempt of cour t, for stay of

procee dings, for sanctio ns, an d for expedited rev ie w. ” I n the mot ion, AyalaS e e In re A y a la , 2 0 0 7 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 3 3 1 9 , a t **1 6 -1 9

. 9 A y a l a l a te r te s ti fie d th a t h e w a s n o t s e rv e d w i th c i ta ti o n i n th e N u e c e s C o u n ty II s u i t. 10 4 all eg ed th at by

fil ing the Nue ces C ounty II sui t, Freddi e had eng ag ed i n “ a bad faith a ttempt to circum v entthis Court’s [stay order] and nullif y its ef fect.” On A pr il 27, 2007, thi s C our t found t he H ida lg o C ounty co urt had acq uired domi nant jur is dic ti on, c ondi ti onal ly g ra nted Ay ala ’s peti ti on for w ri t of manda mus, and di re cte d the Cou nty C our t atLaw N umber

4 t o abat e N ueces C ounty I. W it hout dis cus si on or 9
ex pla n a t i o n , t h i s C o u rtg r a n t e d Ay a l a e x p e d i t e d re v i e w o f h i s e me rg e n c y

m o t i o n , b ut other w is e deni ed th e reli ef he req uest ed i n tha t moti on . On A pr il 30, 2007, in the N ueces C ounty II su it , t he N ueces C ounty C our t atLaw Number 2 he ld the s chedu led hear ing on F re ddi e’s req ueste d temporar y i nju nct ion

. Cou nsel for Ay ala di d notappear at the h ear ing

. At the hear ing , Freddi e present ed th e 10 testim ony of

John Martinez, an emp lo ye e o f F re ddie . Martinez testif ied th at: (1) Ay ala owed Fred die six

recordings unde r the agreem ent ; and (2) F redd ie had learned of Ay ala’s pla n to re lea se a mast er recordin g to Sony , i n v iol ati on of t h e a gre e ment. D ur ing the hea ring, the trial co urt signed a tem pora ry in junctio n, da ted April 30, 20 07, enjoin ing Ay ala from del iv er ing any

new mast ers t o Sony

unti l they

w ere first del iv ered to F re ddi e. On M ay 8, 2007, in the Hi dal g o Cou nty sui t, Ay ala filed his thi rd amended peti ti on, seek ing : (1 ) the d is sol uti on of the tempo ra ryi nju nct ion i n N ueces C ounty II ; and ( 2) an anti -s uit i nju nct ion e njo ini ng F re ddi e from pu rs uin g the Nue ces C ounty I and N ueces Co u n ty II su it s a n d f ro m f ili n g a d d it io n a l su it s aga in stAya la . On May 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e Hid a lgo Cou nty co urt hel d a h e a rin g on Ay ala ’s req uestfor a n ant i- sui t i nju nct ion

. Both par ti esAt t he M ay 22, 200 7 he ar i ng, c ou ns el f or Fr eddi e ad v i sed t he t r i al cour t t hat t hey bel i ev ed t he 11 hear i ng co ncer ned a t em por ar y r est r ai ni ng o r der , ra t her t han a hear i ng on a t em por ar y i nj unct i on, beca use t he y had not r ecei v ed n ot i ce of t he Hi dal go Count y cour t ’ s pr ev i ousl y - i ssued T R O

. Fr eddi e’ s coun sel acknowl edged t hat “ t her e ar e sev er al coun sel of r ecor d i n t hi s m at t erand onl y one coun sel of r ecor d was pr ov i ded wi t h not i ce of t he T R O i t sel f

. ” Fre ddi e’ s counsel r equest ed a cont i nuance , but f ol l owi ng a n off
- t her ecor d di scussi on ( and wi t hout r ul i ng o n t he r equest ) , t he t r i al cour t pr oceede d wi t h t he t em por ar y i nj unct i on h e a rin g
. 5 appear e d a n d i n t ro d u c e d d o c u me n t s i n t o t h e r e c o rd

. Ay a l a w a s t h e o n l y w i t n e s s w ho 11 prese nte d test imo ny. On May 23, 200 7, th e Hidalgo Count y court issued an a n t i-suit injunct ion. T he court state d tha t “[i]n orde r to protect[its] jurisdiction,” it enjoin ed Fred die from : (1 ) fili ng or

pursui ng any moti ons, pl eadi ng s, or any othe r papers, other

than a n u n co n d it ion al dis mis sal or abat ement, in the F irst or Sec ond N ueces Coun ty Co u rt c ases, or othe rw ise prosecu ting these cases in an y man ner, inc lud in g a n y enforcementof the Temporar y Inj unct ion i n the Sec ond Nue ces C ounty

C our t C ase; (2 ) fili ng any

or ig ina l peti ti ons, co mplai nts o r la wsui ts ag ain st Ay ala i n any cour t, forum, or

j ur is dicti on ot her than thi s Cou rt , based on or st emming from the c lai ms t hat a re m ade or coul d hav e been made i n the F irst and Se cond Nue ces C ounty

C our t C ases or

thi s c ause; and (3 ) tak ing any

acti on to delay

or prev ent Ay ala from fulfil li ng hi s c ontract ual and l eg al obl ig ati ons to S ony
. T he co urt also m ade the followi ng additio nal f indings: Base d on the A ppl ic ati on, t he Pl eadi ng s, the e v ide nce, and the arg uments of couns el[ ,] the Cou rt finds and conc lud es that a) [Ay ala ] doe s not o w e any

addi ti onal al bums t o [Freddi e] and has not re fused to del iv er any alb ums t o [F re ddi e] un der the Rec ordin g Agreement; b) [Ay ala ] w as not a nd i s n otreq ui r ed t o de l i v er al bu ms t o [F r ed di e] c on te mp oran eo us l y w i th a l bu ms del iv ere d t o S o n y

de M ex ic o, S .A. de C .V. (“ Sony ”) for rele ase outs ide the United State s; c) [Fredd ie] w aived any ri ght to require that [A y ala] reco rd his alb ums at[F re ddi e’s ] s tudi o i n Cor pus Chr is ti ; d) [F re ddi e has ] breache d and v iol ated the R ecordin g Ag re ement be tw een t he par ti es; a n d e) [Ay ala ] has shown a strong and su bsta ntial likelihoo d tha t he wi ll prev ail on th e me rits. The Co urt al so finds that Ay ala has est abl is hed the e x is tenc e of v er y sp eci al ci rc umstan ces and the p otent ial fo r an i rreparabl e mi sc ar ri ag e of ju sti ce to w ar ra nt a n a nti -s uiti nju nct ion . [ Freddi e has ] demons trated thei r bad fait h and tota l disregard fo r the lawf ul orde rs a nd jurisdiction of this Court and , if6

unre straine d, w ill: 1) co nti nue t heir ev asi on and threats to thi s C our t’ s j ur is dicti on by fo ru m sh o p p in g; 2) cont inu e the w ro ng ful mult ipl ic ati on of proceed ing s w it h the i ntent to th w art this Court’s do min antju risdiction an d the Court of Appe als’ Ma ndamus Order , c ausi ng hav oc and a w ast e o f judi ci al and app ellate resources; 3) co nti nue t o harass and force Ay ala to the gre at pe rs onal and financi al burden of ha v ing to defend hi msel f aga ins t v ex ati ous pr o c eed ings, and th e resulting disruptio n of the jud icial process, ri s k in g t h e lo s s o f

h is ri gh tt o p ro c e e d t o t ri a l i n Hi d a lg o Co u n t y; 4) conti nue to attempt to prev ent Ay ala f ro m fulfil li ng hi s c ontract ual and l eg al obl ig ati ons; and 5) al ter the sta tus q uo and caus e a mi sc ar ri ag e of ju sti ce. This appeal ens ued. F re ddi e c ontends thatthe Hi dal g o C ounty co urt abu sed it s dis creti on i n i ss u ing the anti -s uiti nju nct ion

. By si x su b- is sues , F re ddi e arg ues the t ri al
cour t abu sed it s d is creti on bec ause: ( 1) the Hi dal g o C ounty and Nue ces C ounty

II su it s involv e sep arate provi sions of t he agreem ent ; (2) th is Cou rt h ad a lready rejecte d Ayala’s
re q uestfor i nju nct iv e reli ef; (3 ) Ay ala p re se nted no ev ide nce of spec ial ci rc umstan ces
re q uired for an ant i- sui t i nju nct ion ; ( 4) the tr ial co urt dec ide d the ult imat e is sues i n the ca se; (5) the injun ction was too broa d; an d (6) it enjoined Freddie f rom int erfering w ith Ayala’s obl ig a ti ons to S ony , ev en th oug h Sony i s n ot a par

ty and Ay ala ’s co ntract ual and leg al obl ig ati ons to S ony

hav e notbeen est abl is he d. I I
. S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w a n d A p p l i c a b l e L a w W hether to g ra nt or

deny a t emporar

y i nju nct ion i s w it hin the tr ial co urt’ s s oundYa rt o v
. Gilli l a nd , 2 87 S

. W

. 3d 8 3, 89 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i 200 9, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng But naru v. 12 Ford Mot or

C o. , 8 4 S .W .3 d 1 9 8 , 2 0 4 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ))

. Id

. 13 Id

. 14 Londo n Mkt

. I nsurer s v. Am

. H om e Assur

. C o. , 9 5 S .W .3 d 7 0 2 , 7 0 5 ( T e x
. A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 15 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.).

H ar bor Per f usion, I nc. v. Fl oyd , 4 5 S .W .3 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 7 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 1 , n o p e t.). 16 B an kof

T ex
. , N

. A

. v. G au be rt , 2 8 6 S .W .3 d 5 4 6 , 5 5 2 (T e x . A p p .– D a l l a s 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t.). 17 G annon v. Payne , 7 0 6 S .W .2 d 3 0 4 , 3 0 5 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ); L o n d o n M k t. , 9 5 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 6

. 18 L o n d o n M k t. , 9 5 S .W .3 d a t 7 0 6

. 19 Id

. 20 7 dis creti on. A re v iew ing co urt s houl d rev erse an order g ra nti ng i nju nct iv e reli ef only i f the 12 tr ial co urt abuse d it s dis creti on. The re v iew ing cour t must not s ubst it ute i ts jud g ment for 13 the t ri al cour

t' s j udg ment unl ess the tr ial co urt' s a cti on w as so ar bit ra ry thati t ex ceede d the bounds of re a so n a b le d is creti on. I n rev iew ing the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er , w e are to draw 14 in fe re n ce s f ro m th e evid e n ce in th e m a n n e r m o stfa vora b le to th e t r ia l co u rt ’s ru lin g. 15 Al thoug h a tr ial courtdoes not abus e i ts dis creti on w hen i t bas es it s d eci si on on confli cti ng
ev ide nce, thatev ide nce must re asona bly su ppo rt t h e t ri al cour t' s d eci si on. O n

16 int er loc utor

y appeal of an order

granti ng a temporar

y inju nct ion , w e do not reach the mer it s of the dis pute, but deter mine onl y w hether the re cord suppo rt s the tr ial cour t' s ex er ci se of dis creti on. 17 Tex as cour

ts hav e the pow er , throug h anti -s uiti nju nct ion s, to prev ent p ersons from proceed ing w it h l it ig ati on fil ed i n oth er sta te cour ts. How ev er , thi s eq uit abl e pow er i s t o 18 be ex er ci sed spar ing ly , and onl y i n v er y sp eci al ci rc umst a n ce s. The par ty se eki ng the 19 inj unct ion has the burden t o s how thata c lea r e q uity

demands the inj unct ion

. The 20Id

. 21 G annon , 706 S. W

. 2d a t 305
- 06. 22 G onz al ezv. R eliant Ener gy, I nc. , 159 S. W

. 3d 6 15, 623 ( T ex. 200 5) ( ci t i ng G ol den R ul e I ns. C o. v. 23 H ar per , 9 2 5 S .W .2 d 6 4 9 , 6 5 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ))

. G annon , 706 S. W

. 2d a t 307

. 24 S e e Y

a rto , 287 S. W

. 3d at 88 n. 8 ( col l ect i ng ca ses)

. I n Ya rto , t h i s C o u rt e x p re s s l y d e c l i n e d to 25 deci de t hi s i ssue, but r at her , assum ed ar guend o th a t th e tr a d itio n a l p r e r e q u is ite s a r e a p p lic a b le to a n a n ti- s u it i n ju n c ti o n
. S e e i d

. T r adi t i onal l y , an appl i cant fo r a t em por ar y i nj unct i on m ust pl ead and pr ov e: ( 1) a cause ofact i on a gai nst t he d ef endan t ; ( 2) a pr obabl e r i ght t o t he r el i efsoug ht ; a nd ( 3) a pr obabl e, i m m i nent , and i rr e p a ra b l e in ju ry i n th e i n te rim

. S e e i d

. at 88. W e not e t hat Fre ddi e does not chal l enge t he a nt i
- sui t i nj unct i on o n g ro u n d s re l a te d to th e tra d i ti o n a l p re re q u i s i te s
. T h u s , w e d o n o t a d d re s s th e i s s u e
. 8 appl ic ant mus t demonstrate the potenti al for an ir re parabl e mi sc ar ri ag e of ju sti ce in order to ob tai n the anti -s uiti nju nct ion

. W hen a sui t i s fil ed i n a c our t of co mpetent jur is dic ti on, 21 that cour t i s e nti tl ed to proce ed to j udg ment and may protec t i ts jur is dicti on by enj oin ing the par ti es to a sui t s ubseq uentl y fil ed i n anot her

co urt of thi s s tate. 22 An anti -s uit inj unct ion is appropr iat e in four ins tanc es: (1 ) to address a threat t o the
cour t’ s j ur is dicti on; ( 2) to pr ev ent t he ev asi on of i mport ant p ubl icpol icy ; ( 3) to prev ent a mult ipl ic ity

of sui ts; or

( 4) to protec t a par

ty from v ex ati ous or

hara ss in g l it ig ati on. The 23 ci rc umstan ces of each si tuati on mus t be care f u lly e xamined t o det er mine w hether the inj unct ion i s n eces sar

y to pr ev ent a n i rreparabl e mi sc ar ri ag e of ju sti ce. 24 T he m ajority rule in Te x as is th at in add ition to me eting the requirem ent s nece ssary to ob tai n an anti -s uiti nju nct ion , the tradi ti onal prereq uis it es to i nju nct iv e reli ef must be met by a pa rty se eki ng an a nti -s uiti nju nct ion

. 25 III. Disc ussi on A
. Sep arat e Iss ues In i ts firs t s ub- is sue, F re ddi e c ontends thatthe Hi dal g o C ounty co urt abu sed it s dis creti on i n gra n ti n g the anti -s uiti nju nct ion bec ause the H ida lg o C ounty su itand the9

Nu e ce s Co u n ty II su it“do no t c o n ce rn rel a te d iss u e s. ” Ac co rd in g to Fre d d ie , t h e Hid a lgo Cou nty su iti s a decl arator

y jud g ment and breach of c ontractac ti on to dete rmi ne w hether Ay ala has met h is obl ig ati on to del iv er fourt een albums to Freddi e as req uired unde r the agreem ent

. In contrast, the N uece s Coun ty II suit con cerns Fredd ie’s ow nersh ip, con trol, and r ig ht t o di str ibu te t he mas ter recordin g s p ri or

to any othe r company
. W e are unpersuade d by F re ddi e’s arg ument. Parag ra ph I of the agre ement provides tha t “[t]he term of this agreem ent shall be fo r a pe riod of sev en (7) y ears in w hich Ay ala w il l del iv er to Freddi e fourteen (1 4) alb ums.” The ag re ement be g ins on t he dat e of execution and “contin ue[ s] unt il delivery of the fourte ent h (14th ) and f inal albu m un der this ag re ement.” Thus , t he ag re ement i tse lf ce ases to operate u p o n A y ala ’s del iv er y of the fourteen th al bum to Freddi e. Acc ordin g ly , if—as Ay ala cl aims —he has met hi s o bli g ati ons to de liv er the req uired nu mb er of album s und er the a greem ent , Freddie ’s claims tha t Ayala br eache d a s e p a r a t e p ro v i s i o n o f t h e a g r e e me n tfa i l a s a m a t t e r o f l a w b e c a u s e the ag re ement i s n o l ong er operati v e. At the Ma y 22, 2007 temporar y inj unct ion hear ing , t he tr ial co urt not ed th at i f: they [Ay ala ] i n fact prov e at tr ial that the re hav e been ov er 14 mas ters t ur ned ov er to Freddi e under

thi s c ontract , t he c ontractac tual ly , y ou and I di ff er on one t hin g
. W ell , may be w e don’ t, y ou j ustdi dn’ t di sc uss i t t h a t w ay
. The prov is ion s req uir ing hi m [Ay ala ] t o tur n ov er masters to Freddi e has ce ased. W e ag re e w it h the tr ial co urt, and reject Freddi e’s arg ument t hat t he prov is ion of the ag re ement ati ss ue i n the N ueces C ounty II su it“ does not a ddress , ei the r d ire ctly or indirectly, any of the issues addresse d in the Hidalgo County Suit.” W e overrule Freddie’s firs t s ub- is sue.10 B. Eff ect of Inre Aya la By i ts sec ond sub- is sue, Fred die contends that bydecli nin g to g ra nt Ay ala the re li ef he req uest ed i n hi s Apr il 24, 2007 “E merg ency Mo ti on to Show Cau se, ” filed i n hi s t henp e n d in g ori gin a l p ro ce e d in g ( In re Ayala ), thi s C our t “ already

dec ide d” thatAy ala w as not enti tl ed to any

reli ef enjoi nin g the Nue ces County II sui t. In Ay ala ’s emerg ency moti on, h e
arg ued t hat F re ddi e, by fil ing the Nue ces C ounty II su it , had v iol ated thi s Cour t’ s s tay order (ente red in the man dam us p ro c e e d in g) and w as att em pting to evade th is Court’s jur is dic ti on. In t he emerg ency moti on’ s p ra y er

for reli ef , Ay ala req uest ed, a mong othe r
re li ef, that Freddi e “ be ordered to i mmediat ely ce ase and des is t from the p ro sec uti on of the Seco nd N ueces C ounty C ase, di smi ss i t, dis sol v e the temporary rest ra ini ng order , and
canc el the h ear ing on t he req uestfor a temporar y inj unct ion .” As noted, thi s C our t, w it hout
ex pla nati on, d ecl ine d to g ra nt an y of the reli ef req uest ed i n the emerg ency moti on ex cept t h e re qu e s tfo r e xp e d it e d re vie w. W e reje ct Freddi e’s arg ument t hat thi s C our t’ s fai lure to g ra nt Ay ala hi s req uest ed
re li ef in t he mandamus proceed ing i s s omehow “ the l aw of the c ase. ” F re ddi e’s co unsel
m a d e th e sa m e argu m e n t t o th e Hid a lgo C o u n ty co u rtatth e te m p o ra ry inj u n ct io n he a rin g, charact er iz ing thi s C our t’ s r uli ng i n In r

e Ay ala as follows: And t he C our

t of A ppeal s from Cor pus Chr is ti sai d tw o thi ng s: N umber one, Cas e N o. 2 shoul d be abated, but No. 2, w e are notg oin g to do a dog g one thing to No. 3. W e are notgoing t o stop it. T here is a T RO in place. W e are not g oin g to ov ertur n tha t. W e are notgoi ng to sanc ti on F re ddi e R ecords for g etti ng i t. And w e are g oin g to all ow the immi nent temporar y i nju nct ion hear ing w hic h w as sc hedul ed for tw o day s l ater , w e are g oin g to all ow that to g o forw ard. So t his v er

y i ss ue before Y our

H o n o r h a s been r ule d upon by the Cor pus Chr is ti C our

t of Appea ls. T h e y sai d tha t C ase No. 1 i s d ominan t; Cas e N o. 2 w il l be abat ed; a nd i t i s p rop e r f o r Ca se No. 3, w it h the se new facts and c ircums tanc es and t his need for extraordin ar y reli ef—.11

The tr ial co urt c or re ctl y

note d tha t t his C our

t’ s opi nio n “d oesn’ t say w hy it w as deni ed.” The tr ial co urt al so noted: I’ m not sure I w oul d hav e disag re ed w it h the T hir teent h Cour

t. T he w ay

y ou [Ayala] pled y our request for relief t o the Th irteen th Cou rt, y ou a re basically ask ing them [F re ddi e] t o be hel d i n c ontemp t f o r v iol ati on of the sta y
. But they l ook at t hose sta y s s peci fical ly

. And I don’ t th in k that they [F re ddi e] w er e s tay ed from fil ing anot her l aw sui t. They

w ere s tay ed from p ro ceedi ng in the l aw sui t t hat e x is ted. That’ s p ro babl y w hy y ou w ere deni ed. W e al so note that at the Apri l 30, 2007 temporar y inju nct ion heari ng in the N ueces Cou nty II su it , F re ddi e bl atant ly mis re present ed th is C our t’ s o pin ion i n In r

e Ay ala to t he tr ial co urt. F re ddi e’s co unsel tol d the N ueces C ounty II tr ial co urt: T h e Co u rtof

Ap p e a ls ru le d th a t t h is C o u rt[ N u e ce s Co u n ty II ] s h o u ld go forw ard w ith the tem pora ry injunct ion he aring today. So, I can giv e the Court a cop y o f

t h a t opin ion, b ut th e Court ha s ruled tha t this hea ring is appropr iat e. .
. . It als o does condi ti onal ly g ra nt a w ri t of M andamus on th e Pl ea i n Abat ement i n the othe r matter but spec ific all y

takes up t he matt er

of today ’s hear ing and tel ls the Cou rtto g o forw ard.

. . . . But , int e re stingly , alon g w ith tho se rulings [the T hirtee nth Court] said th is cas e, cas e number three [N ueces Cou nty II] shoul d g o forw ard. .

. . Al l of that infor mati on, t houg h, w as before the Cour t of Appea ls w ho i nst ead of st ay ing the third suit or issu ing an y so rt o f sla p on our w rist for f iling a law suit, a third suit, inste ad sa id, “Go forw ard. Procee d,” and I think it’s beca use th e Court of Appeal s u ndersto od w e had no ot her reli ef av ail abl e. As is abunda ntl y

cl ear f ro m t h e r e cord, thi s C our t made no s uch ru li ng s o r state me nts. W e ov er ru le Freddi e’s se cond sub- is sue. C. Sp ecial C ircu mst ance s By i ts thi rd su b- is sue, F re ddi e arg ues that “[ n]o e v ide nce for any of the four specia l circum stan ces re quired for the issua nce o f an an ti-suit injunctio n exists i n this case .” Fredd ie argues tha t the re is no threa t to the Hida lg o C o unt y court’s jur is dic ti on bec ause “ the tw o c ases [H ida lg o C oun ty cas e and Nue ces C ounty II ]12

s e e ka djud ication on sep arate and indep end entissues and ev ent s.” W e ha ve alread y a ddre ssed th is arg um entin Freddie’s f irst sub-issue, an d foun d it unpersuas iv e. At t he H ida lg o C ounty i nju nctio n hear ing , Ay ala ’s co unsel address ed th e findi ng s a nd orders conta ine d in the temporar y inju nct ion iss ued i n N ueces C ounty II: W ell, and Judge, y ou’ve n ailed the issu e beca use if y ou view

the te mp orary injunct ion th at th ey obt aine d ex parte, it also s a ys , i thas a f inding tha t Mr. Ay ala breache d the cont ra ct, so y ou’ re ex act ly ri g ht. It ’s not jus t t he fact that there’s tw o c ases
. It’ s o ne c ase in par ti cul ar , butthey ’re as ki ng the cour t and ar e g etti ng co ntrar

y findi ng s t hat w il l hav e an i mpact on th is ca se. An d i n the f inal ana ly sis, Your Hono r, the only thing w e’re asking is l et th em take th eir bestsh ot. That’ s fin e. But itneeds to be here. If they w ant t o do w hatev er t h e y n e e d t o d o , t h e y n e e d t o d o ith e re in o n e ca s e h e re in Hi d a lg o Co u n t y. As noted, the temporar y i nju nct ion iss ued by

the Nue ces C ounty

II co urt enj oin ed Ay ala from del iv er ing any new mast ers to S ony

unti l they

w ere first del iv ered to F re ddi e. As the H ida lg o C ounty

co urt noted, how ev er , if Ay ala ’s obl ig ati ons hav e been metunder the ag re ement, “t hen [Freddi e’s ] l aw sui t dea li ng w it h tho se masters b ein g del iv ered to Sony and the y s ho ul d ha v e be en de l i v ered to us fi rs t an d al l th at , al l th at i s mo ot

. It ’ s g on e. It’s don e.” Th e Hidalgo Count y court also sta ted thatit should d ecide the issue of w het her a
v ali d ag re ement remains betw een the parti es becaus e it i s t he c our t of domi nant jur is dicti on and “that’s precisely w hy the se rules are setup.” At t h e M a y 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 h e a r i n g , Ay a l a t e s t i fi e d , a mo n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t : ( 1 ) he has del iv er ed to F re ddi e al l alb ums du e under the ag re ement; (2) h e wa s not s er v ed w it h ci tati on to appear

i n the N ueces C ounty

II suit ; and (3) that he del iv ered an alb um to Sony in mid- Ma rc h 2007 and “[ had] one more to finis h up w it h [S ony].” Ay ala al so int ro duced the follo w ing doc umentar

y ev ide nce: ( 1) thi s Co u rt ’s o p ini on i n In re Ayala ; (2) Fredd ie’sSee H enr y v. M cM i chael (I n r

e Henr y) , 274 S

. W

. 3d 185, 193 (T ex. A pp. –H oust on [ 1st D i st

. ] 200 8, 26 o rig . p ro c e e d i n g , p e t. d e n i e d ) (o p . o n re h ’ g ); Londo n Mkt

. , 95 S. W

. 3d a t 708

.

A l th o u g h l i s te d s e p a ra te l y i n th e “ Is s u e s P re s e n te d ” s e c ti o n o f i ts b rie f, F re d d i e a d d re s s e s i ts fo u rth 27 and f i f t h sub- i ssues t oget her i n t he “ Ar gum ent ” sect i on of i t s br i ef

. Fre ddi e’ s si xt h sub
- i ssue r egar di ng Sony was m ent i oned onl y br i ef l y wi t hi n t he d i s c us s i on o fi t s f our t h sub
- i ssue a nd was not sepa r at el y add r essed. T h u s , w e c o n c l u d e th a t F re d d i e ’ s s i x th s u b -is s u e re g a rd i n g S o n y i s w a i v e d a s i n a d e q u a te l y b rie fe d

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .1 (i). 13 peti ti on and appl ic ati on for inju nct iv e rel ief in Nuec es Coun ty II ; ( 3) the temporar

y rest ra ini ng orde r issued in Nuece s Coun ty II; ( 4) a Novembe r 16, 200 6 “dem and lette r” f ro m Ay ala’s
couns el to Freddi e; (5) a Febr uar y 20, 2007 lett er

f ro m Freddi e’s counsel to Ay ala ’s co unsel
re g a rd i n g t h e d e n i a l o f Ay a l a ’ s p l e a i n a b a t e me n t i n N u e c e s C o u n t y I ; ( 6 ) a c o p y of the ag re ement; and ( 7) a c opy of the t ra nsc ri pt of the Ja nuar y 12, 2007 pl ea- in- abatement hear ing i n N ueces C ounty I. At t he ti me of the M ay 22, 2007 he ar ing i n the H ida lg o C ounty co urt, the c our

t had before i t: ( 1) thi s C our t’ s o pin ion es ta b lis h in g the H ida lg o C ounty co urt as the cour

t of domina nt j ur isd icti on ov er N ueces C ounty

I; ( 2) ev ide nce that the t ri al cour t i n N ueces Cou nty I had fail ed to sig n an order of abatement ; and ( 3) a t emporar y i nju nct ion i n N ueces C o u n t y I I , w h i c h e n j o i n e d Ay a l a f r o m m e e t i n g h i s c o n t ra c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n s t o S o n y
. W e
conc lud e tha t as the cour t of dominant jur is dicti on, the Hi dal g o C ounty co urt had the pow er to protec t i ts jur is dicti on ov er the par ti es and the is sues before it by enj oin ing Freddi e from pursui ng i ts sui ts in Nue ces County I and N ueces C ounty

II , fil ing addi ti onal su it s b ased on the same claims, an d f rom int erfering w ith Ayala’s o b li gations to Sony. W e overrule 26 Freddi e’s thi rd su b- is sue. D. Impermiss ibly Broad By its fourth sub-issue, Freddie con ten ds tha t the language o f the te mp orary 27 inj unct ion i s i mpermi ss ibl y broad becaus e it (1) prev ents Fred die from br ing ing any ac ti on14

ag ain st Sony ; and (2) prohi bit s “any cl aims betw een F re ddi e and Ay ala —des pit e hav ing no relation ship w ith the current dispu te” insofar as the proh ibition inclu des claim s that“could have bee n ma de” in the Nueces Cou nty I a n d N u eces Cou nty II suits—a cate gory w hich includes “ pe r mi s s i v e an d w ho l l y u nrel at ed c l ai ms .” W e are un pe rs ua de d by F r ed di e’s
arg ument. The i nju nct ion enjoi ned Freddi e from pu rs uin g the Nue ces C ounty I and N ueces Coun ty II suits an d f rom filing any new suits “base d on o r stemm ing from the claim s thatare made or co uld hav e been made” in thos e sui ts or the Hi dal g o C ounty

su it

. W e not e tha t at th e en d of

th e Hid a lgo Co u n ty te m p o ra ry i n j u n c t i o n he a rin g, t h e fo llo wing e xch a n ge
occ ur re d: [Court] : I’m going to r ule w het her or notthis case sho uld go f irst

and t hat c ase shoul d be abated, per iod

. That’s w hat y ou’ re as ki ng for. It’ s basi cal ly an abatement is sue but i t ’ s i n t h e fo r m o f a n i n j u n c t i o n e n j o i n i n g t h e m from doi ng i t. [Fredd ie’s coun sel]: And w e w ould only not e tha t t h is junctio n [sic] here is

much b ro ader

than mere req u e st t h a t y ou order us to abate cas e number

three and w e w oul d s ubmitthatthat [si c] extra i s—

w oul d be—

w oul d be ina ppropriat e regardless of

the cou rt’s find ings. [Ay ala ’s co unsel ]: Oh, it is , Judg e, I’ v e lea rn ed my les son from the cour t of app eals, you know. W e ne ed to keep these peo ple from fil ing —i f y ou j ustabat e the y ’v e got to fil e anot her one. I mean, w e j ust

need to pu t an end t o thi s. W e c oncl ude t hat t he te mpora ry i nju nct ion i s n ot i mpermi ss ibl y broad. W it hin thi s s ub- is sue, F re ddi e also c o n te n ds the t ri al cour t ex ceede d i ts author ity b y “d eciding the ultim ate issues fo r trial.” W e recogniz e tha t “[a]t the hea ring for a tem pora ry

w rit of injunctio n, th e ap plicantis no t required to esta blish tha t she wi ll prev ail on final tr ial ; t he onl y

q uest ion before the t ri al cour t is w hether

the appl ic ant i s e nti tl ed toS e e W a llin g v . M e tc a l fe , 86 3 S

. W

. 2d 56 , 58 (T ex
. 19 93 ). 28 S e e Ira n ia n M u s lim O r g . v . C ityo f S a n A n to n io , 6 1 5 S .W .2 d 2 0 2 , 2 0 8 (T e x . 1 9 8 1 ). 29 S e e , e
. g
. , R & R Re s
. Co r p
. v
. E c h e l o n Oil

& Ga s , L

. L

. C. , N o . 0 3 -0 5 -4 7 9 -C V , 2 0 0 6 T e x . A p p . L E X IS 30 326, at * * 30- 31 ( T ex. App. –Aust i n 20 06, no pet

. ) ( f i ndi ng r ul i ng g r ant i ng t em por ar y i nj unc t i ve r el i efdi d no t consi st of

adv ance r ul i ng o n t he m eri t s wher e pa r t i es see k i ng i nj unct i v e r el i efdi d no t r ecei v e al l r el i ef re q u e s te d i n m o ti o n fo r te m p o ra ry i n ju n c ti o n o r p e ti ti o n ); Tri
- St ar Petrol eum C o. v. Ti pp era r y C or p. , 103 S .W .3 d 5 8 3 , 5 9 3 (T e x . A p p .– E l P a s o 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ) (s a m e ). 15 prese rv ation of

the sta tus quo pe ndin g trial on the merits.” A ruling on tem pora ry 28 inj unct iv e reli ef maynot be us ed to obtain an adv ance ru li ng on t he mer it s. H ere, 29 how ev er , Ay ala di d notrecei v e al l the reli ef re q uest ed i n hi s “ Third Amended Pet it ion for Declarato ry

Judgme nt, for Injun c tion a nd Dam ages.” For ex am ple, in his pe tition, Ay ala all eg ed F re ddi e ow ed hi m in come a nd roy alt ies , failed t o prov ide hi m an ac count ing of inc ome and ro y alt ies , and cl aimed ex emplar y damag es. Thus, the H ida lg o C our t di d not g ra nt reli ef ident ic al to t hat req uest ed i n Ay ala ’s thi rd amended peti ti on. 30 W e al so note that at t he temporar y inj unct ion hear ing , Ay ala ’s couns el tol d the co urt: You’v e also ha d the ben ef it of Mr. Ay ala’s test imo ny in this case wi th regard to th e elem ent s. I don’t kno w thatw hen w e’re dea ling wit h a n an ti-suit inj unct ion i t’ s n eces sar

y to prov e the el ements of y our tradi ti onal i nju nct ion , butwe d id so anyw ay. T he o nly evidence you’v e got before you toda y is M r. Ay ala ’s pos it ion thath e h as not b een ac count ed for in ter ms of al l the records and royalties owed, tha t he believes tha t he has me t all o f h is obl ig ati ons under

the cont ra ct alt er nati v e. W hat h e’s as kin g f o r is for t he cour t to say , y ou ow e w hatev er i t i s t hat h e ow es, so he’ s n ot r unni ng aw ay f rom h is obligations. He’s said tha t he will abid e by w hat ever the court’s deci si on i s, ev en th oug h he feels and w e feel confide nt t hat w e’v e del iv ered a ll t h e a lb u m s n e c e s s a ry. Now they ’v e c laime d si de l etters a nd al l thi s o ther ki nd of st uff

. Of course y ou don’ t hav e anyev ide nce of that b ecaus e the y di dn’ t puton a ny proo f , y ou kn ow, by choice , so the onl y e viden ce y ou h ave then is M r. Ay ala ’s tes ti mony

w ith r e gard to hav ing fulfil led hi s o bli g ati ons under the cont ract and Freddie no t having f ulf illed his.

. . . . Judg e, t his i s a ca se that cr ies out for an anti -s uiti nju nct ion underS e e L o n d o n M k t. , 95 S. W

. 3d a t 708

. 31 16 thes e c ircums tanc es. I mean, no one— no l it ig ant, no person shoul d hav e to g o throug h w hat Mr. Ay ala has g one t hroug h j ustto g et hi s d ay i n c our t, w hic h i s w hy

w e’re as ki ng thatthe cour t protec t i ts jur is dic ti on s o tha t w e c an hav e tha t day

i n c our t and presentour

ev ide nce. W e con clude thatthe trial court did no t decid e the case on the m erits w ithou t a f ull tr ial

. W e ov er ru le Freddi e’s fourt h and fifth sub- is sues
. IV. Conclusion Draw ing al l leg it imat e i nferenc es from the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the t ri a l c o u rt ’s ru li n g, we co n c lu d e t h e re wa s “s o m e b a s is ” o n wh ic h t h e t ri a l co u rtco u ld h a ve held as it did; thu s, the trial cou rt d id nota buse its discretion. Hav ing ov erruled Fred die’s 31 is sue and s ub- is sues , w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

LIN DA R EY NA Y AÑ EZ J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 30t h day

of September , 200 9.