Court Opinion

ID: 2925601
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:23:59.822163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:52.312535
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-07-696-CV

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                  THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                     CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

INTERNATIONAL BANK OF
COMMERCE, ET AL.,                                                            Appellants,

                                            v.

MAR-ROX, INC., ET AL.,                             Appellees.
____________________________________________________________

             On appeal from the 370th District Court
                   of Hidalgo County, Texas.
____________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela
                   Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

       This case is currently before the Court on the records and briefs. Appellants have

appealed from the trial court’s order on November 2, 2007, purporting to grant Appellees’

request for a temporary injunction. Appellees have argued that the trial court’s order was

not a temporary injunction; therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this interlocutory
appeal. See TEX . CIV . PRAC . & REM . CODE ANN . § 51.014(a)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2007)

(granting jurisdiction to review an order that grants a temporary injunction). On December

7, 2007, this Court remanded this matter to the trial court for "the taking of evidence" and

"entry of findings of fact" pertaining to: the type of security provided by appellees, the

sureties on the bond, the sufficiency of the amount of security; and the determination

whether to permit suspension of enforcement.

       On April 30, 2008, Judge Noe Gonzalez, presiding judge of the 370th District Court,

issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. In those findings, he determined that his

order dated November 2, 2007 did not grant a temporary injunction but, rather, merely

constituted a pretrial ruling on the validity of certain security agreements at issue. Because

the trial court did not grant a temporary injunction, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

Accordingly, the interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

                                                         PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and
filed this the 2nd day of May, 2008.

                                              2