NO. 01-15-00583-CV

In the Court of Appeals

for the

First District of Texas

THE HONORABLE MARK HENRY, COUNTY JUDGE OF GALVESTON COUNTY, 

Appellant, 

v.

THE HONORABLE LONNIE COX, 

Appellee. 

From the 56th Judicial District Court of

Galveston County, Texas, Cause No. 15-CV-0583

APPELLANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY

Edward L. Friedman

State Bar No. 07462950

efriedman@bakerlaw.com 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

811 Main Street, Suite 1100

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: 713.751.1600

Facsimile: 713.751.1717

James P. Allison

Texas Bar No. 01090000

j.allison@allison-bass.com 

J. Eric Magee

Texas Bar No. 24007585

e.magee@allison-bass.com 

Phillip Ledbetter

Texas Bar No. 24041316

p.ledbettcr@allison-bass.com 

ALLISON, BASS & MAGEE, L.L.P.

A.O. Watson House

402 W. 12th Street

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: 512.482.0701 

Facsimile: 512.480.0902

Attorneys for Appellant

ACCEPTED

01-15-00583-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/8/2015 4:16:15 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/8/2015 4:16:15 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 29.3 provides that this Court 

may enter any temporary orders necessary to preserve the parties’ 

rights until disposition of the appeal. TEX. R. APP. PROC. 29.3. This 

Court should grant a stay of the trial court’s temporary injunction until 

the appeal on the merits can be decided. The tone and tenor of Judge 

Cox’s Response, suggesting the need to pursue contempt proceedings 

and implying sanctions should be levied simply for pursuing an 

interlocutory appeal, demonstrates the need for an immediate stay.

In less politically tumultuous circumstances, it would be 

recognized and accepted that Judge Henry’s filing of a notice of appeal 

automatically suspends the interlocutory temporary injunction order 

pending the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 29.1(b) and TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 6.001. The principal case cited by Judge Cox in the 

Response concerned a final judgment and did not implicate TRAP 

29.1(b) or an appellate court’s ability to grant a stay under TRAP 29.3. 

See In re Bd. for Educator Certification 452 S.W.3d 802, 807 n. 36 (Tex. 

2014) (not addressing TRAP 29 and noting that its holding is consistent 
2

with the principle that appellate courts have “near-unlimited” authority 

to grant a stay); see also Dallas v. North By West Entertainment, 24 

S.W.3d 917, 918-19 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000, no pet.) (stating in the 

context of an interlocutory appeal that “Rule 24 is a general rule that 

provides how appellants may supersede final judgments. In contrast, 

rule 29 is a specific rule applying only to the appeal of interlocutory 

orders in civil cases.”).

In any event, Judge Henry seeks a stay from this Court under the 

authority of TRAP 29.3—and recognition of TRAP 29.1(b)—until the 

merits of his appeal can be addressed by this Court. Judge Cox’s 

arguments do not relate to a grant of a stay under TRAP 29.3. Instead, 

Judge Cox’s arguments veer into the merits of the appeal itself or 

arguments that Judge Cox apparently intends to raise at a future 

contempt proceeding. Simply stated, Judge Cox fails to present any 

compelling reason for this Court not to exercise its authority to preserve 

the parties’ rights until disposition of the appeal under TRAP 29.3. 

The need for a stay is evident. The temporary injunction not only 

intrudes into separation of powers concerns between the executive and 

judicial branches, but requires Judge Henry to act on behalf of each of 
3

the independently elected five-member commissioners court, requiring 

Judge Henry to recreate a position that no longer exists as well as 

amend the Galveston County budget in order to transfer funds back 

into the Justice Administration Department to the salary ordered by 

the court. See TEX. LOCAL GOV’T CODE § 81.001, et seq.; see also TEX.

LOCAL GOV’T CODE § 111.001, et seq. (outlining commissioners court 

responsibility regarding budgetary process). Judge Henry is but one 

vote among five.

Judge Cox suggests that the other Commissioners can be held in 

contempt for “acting in concert” with Judge Henry, a questionable claim 

that can be debated at a future point, but Judge Cox does not address 

the potential jeopardy faced by Judge Henry under the temporary 

injunction, requiring him alone to: (i) re-establish the Justice 

Administration Department, (ii) recreate the Director of Justice 

Administration position (but with fewer duties and responsibilities than 

it previously had), (iii) reinstate Ms. Quiroga to the position of Director 

of Justice Administration, and (iv) amend the budget to transfer funds 

into the Department of Justice Administration in order to pay Ms. 

Quiroga the salary ordered by the trial court. Only the commissioners 
4

court as a whole has the responsibility for setting the annual county 

budget and may spend county funds only “in strict compliance with the 

budget.” TEX. LOCAL GOV’T CODE § 111.070; see also id. §§ 111.003, 

111.0675; Gattis v. Duty, 349 S.W.3d 193, 203 (Tex. App.–Austin 2011, 

no pet.). Setting aside the merits of the temporary injunction itself, 

Judge Henry could vote consistently with temporary injunction and 

have his vote overruled by a majority of the commissioners court voting 

contrary. Judge Henry should not be in risk of contempt if a majority of 

the commissioner’s court does not vote consistently with the 

requirements of the temporary injunction. 

CONCLUSION AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF

Judge Henry should have the opportunity to demonstrate to this 

Court that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the 

temporary injunction without jeopardy while this Court considers the 

merits of the appeal. A stay of the temporary injunction is essential in 

order to avoid further political rancor and discord among the 

Administrative Judges and the County Judge while this issue is 

resolved through this appeal. For all of the reasons stated above, Judge 

Henry requests this Court to issue a stay of enforcement of the 
5

temporary injunction from which this appeal is taken. Judge Henry 

further requests all other relief to which he may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Edward L. Friedman

Edward L. Friedman

Texas Bar No. 07462950

efriedman@bakerlaw.com

BAKERHOSTETLER LLP

811 Main Street, Suite 1100

Houston, Texas 77002

Telephone: 713.751.1600

Facsimile: 713.751.1717

James P. Allison

Texas Bar No. 01090000

j.allison@allison-bass.com

J. Eric Magee

Texas Bar No. 24007585

e.magee@allison-bass.com

Phillip Ledbetter

Texas Bar No. 24041316

p.ledbettcr@allison-bass.com

ALLISON, BASS & MAGEE, L.L.P.

A.O. Watson House

402 W. 12th Street

Austin, Texas 78701

Telephone: 512.482.0701 

Facsimile: (512) 480-0902

Attorneys for Appellant
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document has been served to the following parties on this the 8th day of 

July, 2015, in accordance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 

and the electronic filing procedures.

/s/ Edward L. Friedman

Edward L. Friedman