Timothy Castleman and Castleman Consulting, LLC v. Internet Money Limited D/B/A the Offline Assistant and Kevin O'Connor, Individually
07-16-00320-CV
| Tex. | Dec 9, 2016Background
- Internet Money, Ltd. and Kevin O’Connor filed a "Verified Original Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction" against Timothy Castleman and Castleman Consulting, alleging defamatory social-media posts and improper contacts causing "fear, anxiety, and harassment."
- Internet requested injunctive relief enjoining Castleman (and agents) from contacting or publishing about Internet during the litigation and sought a permanent injunction later.
- The filing was presented to the court as an original appellate proceeding seeking extraordinary relief under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.1.
- An interlocutory appeal was already pending: Castleman had appealed an order denying his motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act.
- The court assessed whether it had authority to issue the requested injunctions to protect its jurisdiction or otherwise preserve the subject of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to issue an injunction in an original appellate proceeding | Internet argued the appellate court could issue injunctive relief under Rule 52.1 and Gov’t Code §22.221 to prevent ongoing harm | Castleman implicitly argued (via existing appeal) that the appellate court’s writ power is limited and not for protecting litigants from harassment | Denied: appellate writ power exists but only to enforce jurisdiction; not to protect a litigant from harassment in this context |
| Whether the requested injunction is necessary to preserve appellate jurisdiction | Internet contended immediate relief was needed to preserve the status quo and protect rights pending litigation | Castleman’s appeal suggests the injunction is not necessary to preserve the subject of appeal | Denied: Internet failed to show the writ was necessary to enforce or preserve the court’s jurisdiction |
| Availability of temporary orders under Tex. R. App. P. 29.3 while an interlocutory appeal is pending | Internet sought relief analogous to injunction under Rule 29.3 to preserve parties’ rights | Castleman’s pending appeal limits relief to what is necessary to protect rights pending appeal; movant must clearly show entitlement | Denied: Internet did not demonstrate how parties’ rights were at risk or justify scope of relief under Rule 29.3 |
| Sufficiency of proof and legal authority supporting relief sought | Internet alleged fear, anxiety, harassment and asserted need for broad prohibitions | Castleman relied on caselaw and procedural limits restricting injunctions in original appellate proceedings | Denied without prejudice: Internet offered no controlling authority or persuasive argument showing entitlement to the requested relief |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Garza, 153 S.W.3d 97 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 2004) (appellate courts may issue writs necessary to enforce jurisdiction but scope is limited)
- Pace v. McEwen, 604 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. Civ. App. — San Antonio 1980) (injunctions may not be used merely to protect a litigant absent jurisdictional need)
- EMW Mfg. Co. v. Lemons, 724 S.W.2d 425 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1987) (appellate power to issue writs to preserve subject of appeal)
- Lamar Bldg., Inc. v. Guardian Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 786 S.W.2d 789 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (Rule 29.3 relief analogous to injunctions; movant must clearly show entitlement)