Kelly Reid Walls v. Daniel Klein, 04-12-00615-CV

Walls and Klein ended a romantic relationship; disputes were settled by a 2012 agreement including confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses and a specific-performance provision.
Settlement signed April 26, 2012; Walls received $30,000 and agreed not to disparage Klein or contact him through third parties.
Walls later sought injunctive relief alleging Klein stalked, harassed, and threatened her; Klein opposed and sought his own temporary injunction for defamation, breach of contract, and invasion of privacy.
Trial court granted Klein’s temporary injunction and denied Walls’ injunction; it modified Walls’s proposed order and Walls moved to dissolve.
Walls’ Facebook posting after the agreement and other conduct were offered to show disparagement and interference with Klein’s relationships, including church ties; the court’s role was to preserve status quo pending merits.
Court in a modified injunction affirmed, concluding most provisions were within the underlying non-disparagement and non-contact terms, except paragraph (1) which it found overly broad and accordingly modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the injunction constitutes a prior restraint on Walls’ speech	Walls argues it imposes prior restraint on protected speech.	Klein contends it enforces contractual prohibitions within the settlement.	No improper prior restraint; paragraph (1) modified to narrow scope.
Whether specific performance is an available remedy for breach of a non-disparagement clause	Specific performance not available for defamation breach.	Contract provides specific performance as an enforceable remedy.	Proper to enforce the agreement via specific performance.
Whether the injunction’s terms are within the scope of the agreement or overly broad	Some paragraphs exceed the non-disparagement/non-contact scope.	Most provisions fall within scope; only paragraph (1) overbroad.	Paragraph (1) is overly broad and modified; other paragraphs within scope.
Whether the record supports a finding of probable imminently irreparable harm justifying a temporary injunction			Record shows threat to Klein’s reputation and relationships; court did not abuse discretion.

Brammer v. KB Home Lone Star, L.P., 114 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (court acknowledged need to distinguish contract not to disparage from public-speech restrictions; waiver need be knowing and voluntary)
French v. Community Broadcasting of Coastal Bend, Inc., 766 S.W.2d 330 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1989) (injunctions enforcing covenants not to compete must be narrowly tailored to scope)
Center for Econ. Justice v. Am. Ins. Ass’n, 39 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001) (injunctions must be within scope of underlying contractual provisions)
Henderson v. KTRS, Inc., 822 S.W.2d 769 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (temporary injunctions require preservation of status quo; articulate reasons to prevent injury)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (probable, imminent, irreparable injury required for temporary injunction)