We will refer to the appellants c ollectively as “L a Ve ntana.” 1 L a Ve nta

na a lso c on te nd s tha t th e or de r i s v oid be c a us e it d oe s n ot i de nti fy

the pr ob a ble 2 inj ur y that D ri ft wo od wo uld su ff e r, or wh y su c h in jur y wo uld be ir

re pa ra ble , an d als o tha t it is v oid for lac k of spec ificity . I n light of our di sposition, it is not nece ssary to addre ss appellants’ r emaining issues. See Tex. R. App. P . 47.1. 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-05-00234- CV

La Ventana Driftw ood, L.P.; Lee P . Wood; and Michael Leve nson , Appellan ts
v. Driftwood Deve lopme nt, L.P., A ppellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 05-0 512, HO NORAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSAY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
L a Ve ntana Dr iftwood, L .P., along w ith two of its investors, L ee Wood and Mic hael L e ve ns on , a

pp e a l a te mpo ra

ry inj un c tio n e nte re d a g a ins t the m in fa vo r of Dr if

tw oo d D e ve lop me nt, 1 L .P. L a Ve ntana c halleng es the orde r in six issues, including that the order is void because it does not adher e to the re quirements set for th in Rul e 683. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 683. W e re verse the trial court’s or der. I n its first issue, L a Ve ntana c ontends that the tempora ry injunction is void on its face beca use it fails to include an or der setting the cause for trial. Rule 683 mandates that “[e] very order 2Although Rule 683 doe s not ex pressly say that a tempora

ry injunction must provide an 3 exact trial date, the rule implicitly require s this by

stating that the order

must “set the ca

use for trial.” See E OG Res., Inc . v. Gutierrez , 7 5 S. W. 3 d 5 0 , 5 3 n . 2 ( T e x. A p p . — Sa nA n to n io 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.) (c iti ngse ve ra l c a se s r e qu ir ingte mpo ra ry inj un c tio n to gi ve sp e c if ic tr ia l dat e and int e rp re tin g ru le to require “injunction to order the cause be ca lendar ed on the tria l court’s doc ket”)
. 2 g ra nti nga te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n s ha ll inc lud e an or de r se tti ng the c a us e fo r tr ia l on the me ri ts w ith respe ct to the ultimate r elief soug ht.” Id
. T h e p r o c e d ur a l r e qu i r e m e n t s i nR

u l e 6 8 3 ar e m an d a t o r

y, and an or der g ranting a tempora ry injunction that does not meet them is su b j ec t to being decla

red void a nd dissolved. Qw est C

om mu nic ati on s Co rp . v . A T& T Cor p ., 24 S.W .3d 334, 337 (Tex. 2000). The Te x as Supreme Court ha s established that Rule 683’s re quirement that e very temporar

y injunction must set the ca use for trial on the merits is to be “strictly follow[ed] ,” and or ders whic h fail to adhe re to this require ment may be dec lared void. Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. P az Constr. Co. , 715 S.W .2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1986). The pur pose of r equiring a trial date is to protect 3 the pa rt ie s; o the rw ise , a

te mpo ra ry inj un c tio n c ou ld e ff

e c tiv e ly be c ome a

pe rm ane nt i nju

nc tio n in the abse nce of a final determination by the trial cour

t. EOG Re

s., Inc. v . Gutierrez , 75 S.W .3d 50, 53 (Tex. App.—San Ant o n io 2002, no pet.). Other courts of a

ppeals have held tempor ary injunctions void where they failed to speci fi ca l l y s et the ca se for trial, eve n though the docketing order contained a

trial date, W

y att v . W y att , 74 S.W .3d 576, 577 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. dism’d w.o.j.), or the or der pr ovided a trial would occur at “an appropr iate time and place upon the ag ree ment by t h e p ar t i es .” Outback Ste akhouse v . Rene au , N o . 0 4

- 0 1

- 0 0 4 6 9

- CV , 2 0 0 2 T e x. App. L EXI S 98, at *8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio J an. 9, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op.).3 Her e, the temporar

y injunction doe s not spe cifica lly set the case for trial, but instead pr ov ide s th a t, “ [s]ho uld

thi s la ws uit no t be re fe rr e d to arb itr a tio n, the Cle rk is or de re d to se t th is c a se fo r t ri a l on the me ri ts at th e e arl ie st p ra c tic a ble date. ” Dri ft wood ur g e s th a t th is s ta te me nt i s sufficie nt to comply

with Rule 683 beca

use the trial c ourt has g rante d a motion to compel arbitration, and it wou ld b e “ f

u ti le ” to r e qu ir e th e tr ia l c o u rt to s e t th e c a s e f o r tr ia l w h e n it is g oing to be arbitrated. See Dunaway v. Austin St. Ry . Co. , 195 S.W . 1157, 1159 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1917,
wr it r e f’ d) (“ law o ug ht n ot r e qu ir e any on e to do a futil e a c t” ). Dr if tw oo d’ s c la im, ho we ve r, is without merit. We need not addr ess the question of whether an arbitration date supplants the need for a trial date be cause the re cord r efle cts that, at the time the tri al co u rt enter ed the tempor ary injunction, there wa s no motion t o compel ar bitration befor e it. Se e J

oh ns on v . Ec ho ls , 21 S.W .2d 382, 383 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1929, writ ref ’d) ( only rec ord as i t exis ted at time injunction was issued c an be c onsidered)
. Fur thermore , the rec ord demonstrates that the trial cour t stil l has not
s i g n e d ano r d e r f o r m a l l y c o mp e l l i n g ar

b i t r a t i o n . W i t h o u ta

d a t e s e tt o b e g i nar

b i t r a t i o no r

t r i a l , La Ventana is not protected f

rom the risk that t h i s t em p orar y injunction could effe ctively become a perma nent injunction. See G utierrez , 75 S.W .3d at 53. The trial court c ould have a ccounte d for the po ssi bil ity

of arb itr a tio n a

nd a lso a dh e re d to Rul e 68 3 b y se tti ngthe c a se fo r t

ri a l on a sp e c if ic date and, in the eve nt that arbitration occ urre d befor e that, re moving the c ase f rom the docke t. As i t s t an d s n o w, h o we v er , t h e t em p o ra ry i n j u n ct i o n d o es n o t p ro v i d e a t ri al s et t i n g. I t is, therefor e, void bec ause it fa ils to st rictly follow the procedura l require ments of Rule 683. See Interfirst Bank , 715 S.W .2d at 641. Acc ording ly , without rea ching L a Ve ntana’ s other issues, we4

reve rse the tr ial court’s or der, de clar e the tempor ary injunction order to be void, a nd order that it be dissolved.

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Reverse d and Rende red Filed: September

14, 2005