Court Opinion

ID: 2925600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 21:23:59.056215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:43.100089
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.