AFFIRM; Opinion issued 1 ovember 29, 2012

In The 

### Qtiitrt 

## f iats 

## .fiftI! 

## District nf xas &tt 

## a11t No. 05-12-00331-CV

KHANH DAO, Appellant 

### V. PHIL SILVA, Appellee and P110 PARTNERS, LLC and P110 COLONIAL 1623 MAIN STREET, LLC, Intervenors/Appellecs
On Appeal from the 192 Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-16235-K



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Richter, and Lang Opinion By Justice Bridges Appellant Khanh Dao appeals fromthetrial court’s ordergranting appellees’ application for temporary injunction. 

### In nine issues, Dao complains: (1) the reliefgranted is void, because the trial court must rule on a motion to strike before considering other matters brought by the Intervenors; (2) thetemporary injunction shouldbe dissolvedbecause Silvahas no standingto assertthepleaded claims; (3) the Intervenors have no capacity to assert claims against Dao; (4) 

### the Intervenors have failed to show a justiciable interest; (5) the Intervenors cannot defend a derivative action on themerits, and there is a thial conflict ofinterest; (6) the trial court misapplied the law. governing its 

### equitable power to “balance the harms” 

### (7) the trial court 

### abused its discretion 

### by entbrcing 

### an injunctive order

### that likely alters the status quo and fails

### to preserve the subject matterofthe dispute (8) the order violates rule 683 ofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure; and (9) the order improperly asserts 

### ‘findings” in violation ofrules 296-299aofthe Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure. We affirm. Analysis Underrule 34.6(b). an appellant

### mustrequest in writing thatthe official reporterprepare the reporter’s record. TEx. R. Apr. P. 34.6(h). Ifthe appellant only requests apartial reporter’s record. the appellant must include 

### inthe request a statementofthe points orissues to be presented on appeal and will then be limited to those points or issues. 

### Id. at 34.6(c). The record before us lacks any request for the reporter’s record. Further, the record only contains a partial reporter’s record from the temporary injunction hearing. In this case, the clerk’s record does not include a request to the court reporter. showing a statement ofthe points or issues reliedupon orotherdocument showing the points orissues reliedupon. Thepartialreporter’srecord before us indicates the evidentiary portion ofthe hearing 

### was not requested, and the partial record begins only afterthe trial court closed evidence. Generally. in an appeal with only a partial reporter’s record, we must presume the omitted portions ofthe record are relevant and supportthe trial court’sjudgment. In

### reA. W..P., 200 S.W.3d 242. 244 (‘l’ex. App.—Dallas 2006. 

### no pet.). When, as here, an appellant fails to file anotice ofissues 

### with the clerk, 

### we assume the missing portions ofthe record supportthe trial court’sjudgment. See Id. at 

### 245; TEx. R. App. P. 34.6(c). Strict compliance with rule 34.6(c) is necessary to activate the presumption the omittedportions ofthe record are irrelevant. $4,310 in 

### US. Currency, etal. v. The State ofTexas, 133 S.W.3d 828, 829 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). Because Dao neither fileda complete record on appeal norcomplied with the partial reportefs record provisions ofrule 34.6.

we must presume the omitted reporters record supports thejudgment. See A. IV.P.. 200 S.W.3d at 245; 84,310 in US, Currency, 133 S.W.3d at 829-30; TEx. R. App. P. 34.6 (b), (c). Without a record to review, we cannot say the trial court erred in ruling on appellees application fortemporary injunction priorto appellant’s motion to strike or abused its discretion in granting the temporary injunction. See Amenclv. Wa/son, 333 S.\V.3d 625. 627 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.): TEx. R. App. P. 34.6(c). 

### See also TEx. R. Civ. P. 683 (“The appeal ofa temporary injunction shall constitute no cause for delay ofthe trial.”). We. therefore. affirm thejudgment of the trial court.

DAViD L. BRIDGES’ JUSTICE 12033 IF.P05(!tiitrt tif 

## Appca1 

## .YiftIi Dhitrirt tif ixa tt 

## aI1a JUDGMENT KHANI-l DAO. Appellant Appeal from the l921d Judicial District of Dallas County. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. DC-Il

- No. 05-12-00331-CV V. 16235-K). Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, PHIL SILVA, Appellee Justices Richter and Lang. and P110 PARTNERS. LLC AND PI1() COLONIAL 1623 MAIN STREET. LLC. intervenors/Appellees In accordance with this Court’s opinion ofthis date. the judgment ofthe trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees Phil Silva, Pho Partners. LLC and Pho Colonial 1623 Main Street, LLC recovertheir costs ofthis appeal from appellant Khanh Dao. Judgment entered November 29. 2012.

DAVID L. BRiDGES JUSTICE