Opinion issued December 17, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-01011-CV

———————————

IN RE VINCENT PAUL YOUNG, JR., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Injunction

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Vincent Paul Young, Jr., has petitioned this Court for a writ of 

injunction.1 In the petition, Relator states that the respondent, Pro Player Funding, 

LLC, is attempting to collect on a judgment rendered in the State of New York and 

 

1

The underlying case is Pro Player Funding, LLC v. Vincent Young, cause number 

2012-58323, pending in the 281st District Court of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Sylvia Matthews presiding.
2

domesticated in Texas.2 Relator requests that we enjoin “Plaintiff Pro Player 

Funding, LLC and its officers, agents, servants, employees, independent 

contractors, attorneys, representatives, and those persons or entities in active 

concert or participation with them, from proceeding in any manner with the 

collection efforts, pending the disposition of the merits of the appeal in No. 01-13-

00843-CV.”

The issuance of an extraordinary writ, such as a writ of injunction, is not 

authorized when there is another adequate remedy. See Holloway v. Fifth Court of 

Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Tex. 1989); In re Patel, No. 01-13-00330-CV, 

2013 WL 3422026, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 2, 2013, orig. 

proceeding). In this case, Relator could prevent enforcement of the judgment 

against him during the pendency of his appeal by either superseding the judgment 

in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.1 or showing “that an 

appeal from the foreign judgment is pending or will be taken, that the time for 

taking an appeal has not expired, or that a stay of execution has been granted, has 

been requested, or will be requested” and proving that he “has furnished or will 

furnish the security for the satisfaction of the judgment required by” the State of 

New York. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 35.006(a) (West 2008); 

 

2 Relator has separately appealed the domesticated order under appellate cause 

number 01-13-00843-CV.
3

TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1. Accordingly, we are not authorized to grant the relief 

requested.

Further, the “purpose of a writ of injunction is to enforce or protect the 

appellate court’s jurisdiction.” In re Olson, 252 S.W.3d 747, 747 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding); see Becker v. Becker, 639 S.W.2d 

23, 24 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1982, no writ). Here, Relator contends that 

“collection efforts will destroy the subject matter of the lawsuit and will render 

moot the appeal from the trial court’s judgment.” The judgment is the 

domesticated order, which grants a monetary judgment in favor of Respondent and 

against Relator. Relator fails to demonstrate how execution of a monetary 

judgment would “destroy the subject matter of the lawsuit” or otherwise render his 

appeal moot. Accordingly, the relief requested by Relator is not, as he suggests, 

necessary to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction over his appeal. See Becker, 639 

S.W.2d at 24 (holding that court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief to protect 

its jurisdiction over pending appeal and to preserve subject matter of litigation, but 

not to preserve status quo or prevent loss or damage to party).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of injunction is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.