Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied in Part and Conditionally Granted in 

Part and Memorandum Opinion filed September 21, 2018.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-18-00770-CV

IN RE 2500 WEST LOOP, INC., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

333rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-50232

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 4, 2018, relator 2500 West Loop, Inc., filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2017); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Robert Schaffer, ancillary court judge of Harris County, to modify a 

temporary restraining order (TRO) to permit relator to pursue any rights or remedies 

in a federal court proceeding. On September 14, 2018, relator filed a supplemental 
2 

petition for writ of mandamus in which relator asks this court to compel the 

Honorable Daryl L. Moore, presiding judge of the 333rd District Court, to vacate a 

TRO signed September 13, 2018.

BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2018, the ancillary court judge, Judge R.K. Sandill, entered an 

order restraining Jetall Companies, Inc., Ali Choudhri, Bradley S. Parker, and 2500 

West Loop, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) from directly or indirectly:

1. foreclosing, or attempting to foreclose on the Building, the 

Promissory Note (the “Note”) executed by Mokaram-Latif West Loop, 

Ltd., originally payable to the order of Capital One, National 

Association, assigned by Original Lender to 2500 West Loop, Inc., 

LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, evidencing a loan in the 

original principal amount of $6,000,000, secured by the lien and 

provisions of a Deed of Trust of even date thereto to Sally Bring, 

Trustee, and personally guaranteed by Osama Abdullatif, as amended 

and modified.

2. conducting a Substitute Trustee Sale or any other sale or transfer 

in any way related to the Building, the Note.

Following the issuance of the August 16, 2018 order, and before a hearing 

could be held on the temporary injunction, relator removed the case to federal court 

and filed a motion to recuse Judge Sandill.

On August 30, 2018, the date that the August 16, 2008 order expired according 

to its terms, Judge Schaeffer, acting as the ancillary court judge, entered a TRO–the 

subject of relator’s original petition for writ of mandamus–in which relator and other 

defendants were restrained from:
3 

(i) Foreclosing, exercising any power of sale with respect to, or 

attempting to foreclose on any liens on the Real Property and the 

Building;

(ii) Foreclosing, exercising the power of sale or attempting to foreclose, 

or possessing any property, cash, accounts, or other assets, tangible or 

intangible, of ML Partnership;

(iii) Foreclosing, exercising the power of sale or attempting to 

foreclose, or taking possession of the Building or any books, records or 

accounts owned, leases, property management contracts, construction 

contracts, engineering/architectural contracts, plans and specifications 

with respect to the Real Property and building controlled or used by ML 

Partnership;

(iv) Appointing a receiver without notice to ML Partnership and the 

authorization of this court;

(v) Requiring ML Partnership to surrender insurance policies; 

(vi) Foreclosing any liens on leases and/or rents derived from the Real 

Property;

(vii) Foreclosing any liens on any personal property located at the Real 

Property and any personal property of ML Partnership at any other 

location;

(viii) Exercising any rights under an assignment of rents derived from 

the Real Property;

(ix) Exercising any ownership or control over either (i) the rents derived 

from the Real Property, or (ii) the proceeds of that rent;

(x) Exercising any right of offset or recoupment of money owned by, 

or in the name of, Plaintiff;

(xi) Interfering with Plaintiffs right to quiet enjoyment of the Real 

Property;
4 

(xii) Entering upon the Real Property to take possession of, assemble, 

receive, and collect any personal property;

(xiii) Participating in, providing assistance with or conducting a 

Substitute Trustee Sale or any other sale or transfer in any way related 

to the Building, the Loan or the Note;

(xiv) Notifying any tenants or lessees of any space within the Real 

Property to pay their rents to anyone other than Plaintiff and accepting 

lease and/or rental payments from the Building's tenants or lessees. All 

rental and/or lease payments from the Building's tenants should be paid 

to the Special Master at such location as he may direct; and

(xv) selling, conveying or otherwise transferring the Loan.

After the initial temporary injunction hearing on September 12, 2018, Judge 

Daryl Moore extended the August 30, 2018 TRO for another 14 days. 

In its initial petition for writ of mandamus relator complained that Judge 

Schaeffer exceeded his authority in issuing the TRO signed August 30, 2018. The 

order states that it was in effect until the court’s hearing on the temporary injunction 

scheduled September 11, 2018. Judge Moore began the temporary injunction hearing 

September 12, 2018, but did not complete the hearing that day. To facilitate 

completion of the hearing and review of the parties’ requests, Judge Moore signed 

an order on September 13, 2018, extending the TRO another 14 days. 

On September 14, 2018, relator filed a supplemental petition for writ of 

mandamus in which it argues that the order signed September 13, 2018 should be 

vacated because the order violates Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680. 
5 

ANALYSIS

To obtain mandamus relief, relator must show that the trial court clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re 

Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., L.P., 226 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. 2007) (orig.

proceeding) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding)). Relator contends that Judge Moore abused his discretion 

by granting the second extension of the TRO in violation of Texas Rule of Civil 

Procedure 680. 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 Texas Natural 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.
6 

Real party in interest, Mokaram-Latif West Loop, Ltd, filed a response to 

relator’s supplemental petition in which it argued that the trial court did not violate 

Rule 680. Real party argues that although there are three orders in this case, Judge 

Moore’s September 13, 2018 order was not a second extension of the first order 

signed August 16, 2018.

The parties agree that the September 13, 2018 order extends the August 30, 

2018 order. Real party argues that the August 30, 2018 order was a completely new 

TRO and did not extend the August 16, 2018 order; therefore, the September 13, 

2018 order was not a second extension of the August 16, 2018, but a permissible 

first extension of the August 30, 2018 order. The August 30, 2018 TRO does not, on 

its face, purport to extend the August 16, 2018 order, though it was issued on the 

date that the August 16, 2018 order would expire. However, the restraint, although 

broader in the August 30, 2018 order, essentially has the same effect on relator. The 

supreme court has said, “if a party can obtain unlimited extensions of a temporary 

restraining order, there would be no reason to ever seek a temporary injunction, 

which has more stringent proof requirements.” In re Texas Nat. Res. Conservation 

Com’n, 85 S.W.3d at 204. 

Although the August 30, 2018 does not contain specific language extending 

the August 16, 2018 order, its 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. The 

September 13, 2018 order extending the TRO for a second time does not comply 

with the requirements of Rule 680. Issuance of that order was an abuse of the trial 
7 

court’s discretion. See id. at 204–05. Further, relator has no adequate appellate 

remedy because TROs are generally not appealable. See In re Office of Attorney 

Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). As such, we 

conditionally grant relator’s supplemental petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 52.8(c).

With regard to relator’s initial petition for writ of mandamus filed against 

Judge Schaeffer regarding the August 30, 2018, we deny mandamus relief.

CONCLUSION

We conditionally grant mandamus against Judge Daryl Moore, presiding 

judge of the 333rd District Court. We are confident that Judge Moore will vacate the 

September 13, 2018 order extending the temporary restraining order. The writ will 

issue only if Judge Moore fails to vacate the order. All other relief requested by 

relator is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown.