### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00053- CV

In re Hong Kong Dajiang Inn ovation Technology Co., L td.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Hong Kong Dajiang I nnovation Tec hnology Co. L td. filed a petition for writ of mandamus asser

ting that a temporar

y restra ining or der tha t enjoined it from selling its products
to cer tain customers was void and reques t i n g t h at this Court “conf irm that the [order] is void.”
Be cause mandamus is not an appr opriate ve hicle to make suc h a decla ration, we construe this a s a
reque st for a writ of mandamus order ing the trial court to dissolve the temporar y restra ining order

. Whil e mandamus relief may have been available while the temporar y restra ining order was still in eff ect, howeve r, R el at o r conce des that the order expired by its own terms when the district court signe d a temporar

y injunction on J anuar

y 22, 2014. Be cause the temporar y restra ining or der is no longe r in eff

ect, the issue of

whether it should be dissol ved is moot. Relator asser

ts that even though the temporar y restra ining order has expired, the Real Parties i n I ntere st have t h re at en ed a contempt action based on Relator’s alleg ed failure to comply with the order while it was in place

. Howeve r, the proper vehicle for seeking relief from a judgme nt of contempt base d on a void order is a habea s corpus proce eding

. See Ex parte Shaffer , 649 S.W .2d 300, 302 (Tex. 1983) (cour t will issue writ of habea s corpus if order underlyingcontempt is void). Even if we wer e to trea t Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus as an orig inal 1
habea s corpus proce eding , we would lack authority to g rant relief b e c a u s e Re lator has not established that its liberty has been constraine d. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(d)( 4), (k) (re lator must descr ibe how it has been deprive d of liberty and provide proof that it is being constrai n ed ); E x parte W

illiams , 690 S.W .2d 243 , 2 44 (Tex. 1985) (while applicant for writ of habea s corpus need not actua lly be confine d, some char acte r of restra int is require d); In re Easton , 203 S.W .3d 4 3 8 , 441 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006, no pet.) (mere threa t of arr est does not constitute “constra int” for
purposes of habea s corpus); In re Commitment of Richards , 202 S.W .3d 779, 789 (Tex. App.—B eaumont 2006, pet. denied) (cour ts have, throug h hab ea s proce eding s, revie wed various restric tions that do not amount to confine ment); E x p a rte Alt , 958 S.W .2d 948, 951 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.) (w rit of habe as cor pus is not to be used as dec lara tory tool). The pe tition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for lac k of jurisdiction.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Rose Filed: F ebrua

ry 13, 2014

Whil e mandamus may be an avenue for relief from a fine assessed under a contempt order 1 t h at d o es not include an order of confine ment, see Deramus v. Thornton , 333 S.W .2d 824 (Tex

. 1960), Relator does n o t co n t en d that any such order has been rende red. See also Kidd v. Lance , 794 S.W .2d 586, 587 n.1 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, orig

. proce eding ) (citing Deramus ) (whe n there is no order of confine ment, mandamus i s o n l y reme dy available to party challeng ing validity of contempt orde r). 2