No. 14-15-00534-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 

FOURTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

CHARLES G. SHOOK, 

 Appellant, 

vs. 

RICK HALL and TOMMY YOCHAM, Individually 

and Derivatively on Behalf of Flare Well Testers, Inc., 

 Appellees. 

On Interlocutory Appeal from the 127th Judicial District Court 

of Harris County, Texas, Hon. R.K. Sandill, Presiding 

Trial Court Cause Number 2015-28269 

APPELLANT CHARLES G. SHOOK’S SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE AND REQUEST FOR MORE TIME TO RESPOND TO APPELLEES’

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT AND TO REFER CONTEMPT 

PROCEEDINGS TO TRIAL COURT 

MCCATHERN, P.L.L.C. 

Rodney L. Drinnon 

Texas Bar No. 24047841 

rdrinnon@mccathernlaw.com

Nicholas Zugaro 

Texas Bar No. 24070905 

nzugaro@mccathernlaw.com

2000 W. Loop South, Suite 2100 

Houston, Texas 77027 

Tel: (832) 533-8689 

Fax: (832) 213-4842 

 STOGER LAW FIRM 

 Jonathan S. Stoger 

 Texas Bar No. 00797504 

 jstoger@stogerlaw.com

 2301 Morse 

 Houston, Texas 77019 

 Tel: (713) 522-2848 

 Fax: (713) 522-1120 

Counsel for Appellant and Accused Contemnor Charles G. Shook

ACCEPTED

14-15-00534-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

6/24/2015 11:02:04 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/24/2015 11:02:04 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant and Accused Contemnor, Charles G. Shook, files this sur-reply in 

support of his initial, emergency response to Appellees, Rick Hall and Tommy 

Yocham, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Flare Well Testers, Inc.’s, 

Emergency Motion for Contempt and Request to Refer Contempt Proceedings to the 

District Court.

I. Request for Time to Fully Respond to Motion

There is no compelling reason for Appellees to seek emergency relief. A 

charge of contempt is quasi-criminal in nature and subjects the contemnor to the very 

real possibility of incarceration. A contemnor has a due process right under the 

United States and Texas Constitutions to notice and an opportunity to be heard and 

an adequate time to respond. See Ex parte Johnson, 654 S.W.2d 415, 420 (Tex. 

1983); Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex. 1995). The undersigned have 

represented clients in contempt proceedings before and have yet to participate in a 

case, other than this one, where contempt was sought on an emergent basis. The 

underlying facts and circumstances concerning the contempt charge will not change

if Appellant is given sufficient time to respond, and he asks for at least the ten-day

period under TEX. R. APP. P. 10.3(a) to respond to appellate motions.

II. Filing Emergency Motions is Appellees’ Calculated Strategy

Throughout the District Court proceedings, Appellees have filed nearly every 
2

motion on an emergency basis, as they do here. This has the effect of depriving 

Appellant of a full opportunity to brief the issues and respond. Appellees’ emergency 

motion here was filed at 9:06 a.m. on Monday, June 22, 2015, at a time when 

Appellant’s counsel were working on other matters. Because the motion was filed 

on an emergency basis, counsel had to put aside important work for other clients, 

that was also subject to pressing deadlines, to attempt to draft a response. To show 

the Court that a response would be forthcoming, counsel filed an initial, emergent 

response and requested the normal ten days to file a complete response. To fully 

respond and represent their client’s interests, the undersigned need time to research 

the legal issues and meet with their client. 

III. Appellant Strongly Denies Appellees’ Contempt Charges

Appellees misrepresent Appellants’ position in suggesting that he admits to 

the charges of contempt. Appellant strongly denies the charges lodged against him. 

Despite Appellees’ characterization of the facts, the District Court has never found 

him in contempt of court. No contempt citation has ever been entered against him. 

Appellant strongly denies that he violated the terms of the Temporary 

Injunction Order and would, if required, mount a defense that any funds transferred 

were from a different company than the one in the Temporary Injunction Order. 

At this point, Appellant should not be required to put on his entire defense to 

respond to Appellees’ emergency motion. He should be entitled to at least ten days 
3

to respond to the motion.

IV. The District Court Proceeded Forward on Contempt Without Jurisdiction

It stands undisputed by Appellees that the District Court proceeded forward 

with their contempt motion without any jurisdiction to do so. The District Court did 

not care about the lack of jurisdiction and encouraged Appellant to file a writ of 

mandamus if he was unhappy. A three-hour contempt hearing, in the absence of 

jurisdiction, then went forward over Appellant’s objection. 

V. Judicial Economy Would Best Be Served by Maintaining Jurisdiction

One of the issues Appellant intends to raise in the instant interlocutory appeal 

and in response to contempt is that the underlying Temporary Injunction Order is 

void. A party cannot be held in contempt for violating a void order. Ex parte Shaffer, 

649 S.W.2d 300, 301-02 (Tex. 1983). Despite Appellees’ disparagement of the 

“Great Writ” of Habeas Corpus, it is the device used to challenge unlawful contempt 

citations, include those based on a void order. See id. By maintaining jurisdiction 

over the contempt proceeding, either directly or by making only a limited referral to 

the District Court for findings and recommendations, see TEX. R. APP. P. 29.4(b), 

this Court can consider voidness in both the interlocutory appeal and the contempt 

proceeding, and it would prevent the necessity of filing a habeas corpus petition. 

Appellant intends to raise numerous voidness arguments. Some errors will 

only be apparent from the reporter’s record. Errors apparent on the face of the record 
4

include that Appellees did not secure a Writ of Injunction from the District Clerk 

after the Temporary Injunction Order was signed, or serve the non-existent Writ on 

Appellant. See Docket Sheet, Ex. 1 (no Writ of Injunction appears and no return of 

service for a Writ appears); see also TEX. R. CIV. P. 687 - “Requisites of Writ” (the 

Writ of Injunction must be prepared by the clerk and include the clerk’s signature 

and seal); TEX. R. CIV. P. 688 - “Clerk to Issue Writ” (“When the petition, order of 

the judge and bond have been filed, the clerk shall issue the temporary restraining 

order or temporary injunction, as the case may be, in conformity with the terms of 

the order, and deliver the same to the sheriff or any constable....”); TEX. R. CIV. P. 

689 – “Service & Return” (“The officer receiving a writ of injunction shall indorse 

thereon the date of its receipt by him, and shall forthwith exercise the same by 

delivering to the party enjoined a true copy thereof. The officer must complete and 

file a return in accordance with Rule 107.”).

There are many other errors with the Temporary Injunction Order and 

proceeding, but at this point, Appellant should not be required to mount his entire 

defense on an emergency basis and asks for at least ten days to prepare his response.

PRAYER

For these reasons, Appellant and Alleged Contemnor, Charles G. Shook, 

continues to pray that the Court set a reasonable time to respond to Appellees, Rick 

Hall and Tommy Yocham, Individually and Derivatively on Behalf of Flare Well 
5

Testers, Inc.’s, emergency motions for contempt and to refer contempt proceedings 

to the District Court, that the Court deny the motions in all things, and that Appellant

be granted any further he is entitled to, including court costs.

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rodney L. Drinnon

Rodney L. Drinnon

Texas Bar No. 24047841

rdrinnon@mccathernlaw.com

Nicholas Zugaro

Texas Bar No. 24070905

nzugaro@mccathernlaw.com

McCathern, P.L.L.C.

2000 W. Loop South, Suite 2100

Houston, Texas 77027

Tel: (832) 533-8689

Fax: (832) 213-4842

/s/ Jonathan S. Stoger

Jonathan S. Stoger

Texas Bar No. 00797504

jstoger@stogerlaw.com

Stoger Law Firm

2301 Morse

Houston, Texas 77019

Tel: (713) 522-2848

Fax: (713) 522-1120

Attorneys for Appellant and

Alleged Contemnor Charles G. Shook

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify under TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4 that this Response, excluding those 

portions that do not count towards the total limit, contains 1,065 words, as measured 

by the word count feature in Microsoft Word 2013. The font used is Times New 

Roman, 14-Point for the main text, and Time New Roman, 12-Point for the footnote 

text. 

/s/ Rodney L. Drinnon

Rodney L. Drinnon
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on June 24, 2015, I served a true and correct copy of this SurReply on all counsel of record, as reflected below, via e-service through 

efile.txcourts.gov.

/s/ Rodney L. Drinnon

Rodney L. Drinnon

Ashish Mahendru

amahendru@thelitigationgroup.com

Darren A. Braun

dbraun@thelitigationgroup.com

Mahendru, P.C.

639 Heights Boulevard

Houston, Texas 77007

Attorneys for Appellees

Rick Hall and Tommy Yocham,

Individually and Derivatively on Behalf

of Flare Well Testers, Inc.