In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00192-CV __________________
IN RE HORIZON RADIOLOGY I LIMITED
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-01-01083 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Horizon Radiology I Limited (“Horizon”) sought mandamus relief from an
order denying a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). In re Horizon Radiology I Ltd,
No. 09-25-00175-CV, 2025 WL 1427748, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 16,
2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 1 We denied mandamus relief. Id. Horizon
returned to the trial court, which conducted an evidentiary hearing on Horizon’s
1Our Opinion in No. 09-25-00175-CV described the parties’ dispute and the
proceedings that occurred in the trial court. See In re Horizon Radiology I Ltd, No. 09-25-00175-CV, 2025 WL 1427748, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). For the sake of brevity, we will not repeat ourselves here. 1 application for another TRO. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied
Horizon’s request. In a mandamus petition, Horizon argues the trial court abused its
discretion (1) by denying Horizon’s request for another TRO because the trial court
had found irreparable harm in the first TRO, and (2) by refusing to enforce the
January 24, 2025, TRO, which Horizon argues is still in effect. We deny Horizon’s
motion for temporary relief, and we deny Horizon’s petition for a writ of
mandamus. 2
In its petition for a writ of mandamus, Horizon challenges the trial court’s
refusal to grant Horizon another ex parte temporary restraining order in a contract
dispute between Horizon and Real Party in Interest DataBank Holdings Ltd.
(“DataBank”). Additionally, Horizon argues the January 25, 2025 TRO is still in
effect and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce the order
on May 20, 2025. The trial court rejected Horizon’s argument and the trial court’s
ruling is supported by the mandamus record.
2Horizon filed a motion for temporary relief that asked this Court to (1) order
that DataBank immediately restore Horizon’s access to its systems in the same manner and capacity it had on May 12, 2025, (2) enjoin DataBank from destroying any data, applications, servers, or connectivity that Horizon uses, (3) enjoin DataBank from destroying critical medical data and infrastructure, (4) order DataBank to follow the Rule 11 agreement and negotiate the additional time Horizon needs in good faith, and (5) require Databank to provide a sworn statement that it protected Horizon’s data and did not act, instruct, or allow others to act to harm or destroy Horizon’s data. 2 The trial court disagreed with the factual premise for Horizon’s argument and so do
we.
On January 25, 2025, the trial court granted an ex parte temporary restraining
order that restrained DataBank from terminating any services that DataBank
provides to Horizon or limiting Horizon’s access to those services in any manner.
The order set a temporary injunction hearing for February 5, 2025. The order states,
“It is further ORDERED that this TRO shall expire on February 5, 2025 at 5:00
p.m.” The TRO further stated, “The Temporary Restraining Order shall expire 14
days from the day of issue, or upon further order of this Court, whichever comes
earlier.”
On February 5, 2025, the trial court signed an Agreed Order Extending
Temporary Restraining Order and Ordering Mediation. The Order set a Temporary
Injunction hearing for March 13, 2025, ordered the parties to mediate on March 13,
2025, by agreement of the parties expanded the TRO to order that failure of services
tickets continue to be submitted and worked in accordance with the Parties’ Master
Services Agreement, and stated, “the TRO shall remain in full force and effect until
the hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Injunction stated above.”
On March 13, 2025, the court called the case for the temporary injunction
hearing. Horizon’s attorney stated, “There is hope that the case will settle, Judge. In 3 the meantime, obviously, we are still asking for the TI.” The trial court asked the
attorneys about their expectations regarding the scope of a temporary injunction. The
trial court expressed its discomfort with giving Horizon “access forever” to be paid
sometime when the lawsuit is over, and with allowing DataBank to merely complain
that it had not been paid what it thought it was owed and deny access to Horizon to
its documents. Horizon’s attorney requested a few minutes for a quick conference.
After a brief break the parties informed the trial court that they had reached a Rule
11 agreement “just to resolve the temporary injunction today.” The parties stated the
agreement on the record in open court and made no mention whatsoever of the TRO.
Thus, the trial court granted an ex parte TRO that would expire in 14 days,
then granted an extension of the TRO for more than 14 days, with the consent of the
party subject to the restraint, until the March 13, 2024, temporary injunction hearing.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 680 (A TRO “shall expire by its terms within such time after
signing, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so
fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the
party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer
period.”). On March 13, 2025, the parties neither extended the TRO by agreement
nor asked the trial court to sign a temporary injunction order. Instead, they expressly
entered into a Rule 11 agreement.
4 On May 19, 2025, Horizon filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of its
“Application for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction
filed May 14, 2025.” The trial court agreed to hold an evidentiary hearing on May
20, 2025 on Horizon’s request for another Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order,
and attorneys for both parties appeared at the hearing.
In the May 20, 2025, hearing, the trial court stated:
Y’all did an agreed order to extend the TRO to March 13th. You entered into a Rule 11 Agreement on March 13th. Your co-counsel says that that TI hearing was passed. It wasn’t. It happened. But y’all reached an agreement. That’s why there’s a record of your agreement. So it wasn’t passed. But on that day, you reached a new agreement. And the agreement was 60 days to move all of the data to a new server.
Horizon contends the trial court’s statement “is not accurate. The TI hearing
absolutely did not happen.” Horizon fails to distinguish a hearing from a ruling. The
trial court set a hearing on a temporary injunction and ordered mediation. The trial
court called the hearing, the parties appeared and stated their positions regarding the
proper parameters for a temporary injunction, then the parties had a brief negotiation
outside the presence of the court and returned to announce their Rule 11 agreement.
The Rule 11 agreement did not provide for an agreed extension of the TRO, which
at that point was the only way the trial court could grant an extension of the TRO.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 680. What the parties passed was temporary injunction relief and
the opportunity to present evidence in support of its application for a temporary
5 injunction.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00192-CV __________________
IN RE HORIZON RADIOLOGY I LIMITED
__________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25-01-01083 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Horizon Radiology I Limited (“Horizon”) sought mandamus relief from an
order denying a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). In re Horizon Radiology I Ltd,
No. 09-25-00175-CV, 2025 WL 1427748, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont May 16,
2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 1 We denied mandamus relief. Id. Horizon
returned to the trial court, which conducted an evidentiary hearing on Horizon’s
1Our Opinion in No. 09-25-00175-CV described the parties’ dispute and the
proceedings that occurred in the trial court. See In re Horizon Radiology I Ltd, No. 09-25-00175-CV, 2025 WL 1427748, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). For the sake of brevity, we will not repeat ourselves here. 1 application for another TRO. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied
Horizon’s request. In a mandamus petition, Horizon argues the trial court abused its
discretion (1) by denying Horizon’s request for another TRO because the trial court
had found irreparable harm in the first TRO, and (2) by refusing to enforce the
January 24, 2025, TRO, which Horizon argues is still in effect. We deny Horizon’s
motion for temporary relief, and we deny Horizon’s petition for a writ of
mandamus. 2
In its petition for a writ of mandamus, Horizon challenges the trial court’s
refusal to grant Horizon another ex parte temporary restraining order in a contract
dispute between Horizon and Real Party in Interest DataBank Holdings Ltd.
(“DataBank”). Additionally, Horizon argues the January 25, 2025 TRO is still in
effect and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to enforce the order
on May 20, 2025. The trial court rejected Horizon’s argument and the trial court’s
ruling is supported by the mandamus record.
2Horizon filed a motion for temporary relief that asked this Court to (1) order
that DataBank immediately restore Horizon’s access to its systems in the same manner and capacity it had on May 12, 2025, (2) enjoin DataBank from destroying any data, applications, servers, or connectivity that Horizon uses, (3) enjoin DataBank from destroying critical medical data and infrastructure, (4) order DataBank to follow the Rule 11 agreement and negotiate the additional time Horizon needs in good faith, and (5) require Databank to provide a sworn statement that it protected Horizon’s data and did not act, instruct, or allow others to act to harm or destroy Horizon’s data. 2 The trial court disagreed with the factual premise for Horizon’s argument and so do
we.
On January 25, 2025, the trial court granted an ex parte temporary restraining
order that restrained DataBank from terminating any services that DataBank
provides to Horizon or limiting Horizon’s access to those services in any manner.
The order set a temporary injunction hearing for February 5, 2025. The order states,
“It is further ORDERED that this TRO shall expire on February 5, 2025 at 5:00
p.m.” The TRO further stated, “The Temporary Restraining Order shall expire 14
days from the day of issue, or upon further order of this Court, whichever comes
earlier.”
On February 5, 2025, the trial court signed an Agreed Order Extending
Temporary Restraining Order and Ordering Mediation. The Order set a Temporary
Injunction hearing for March 13, 2025, ordered the parties to mediate on March 13,
2025, by agreement of the parties expanded the TRO to order that failure of services
tickets continue to be submitted and worked in accordance with the Parties’ Master
Services Agreement, and stated, “the TRO shall remain in full force and effect until
the hearing on Plaintiff’s Application for Temporary Injunction stated above.”
On March 13, 2025, the court called the case for the temporary injunction
hearing. Horizon’s attorney stated, “There is hope that the case will settle, Judge. In 3 the meantime, obviously, we are still asking for the TI.” The trial court asked the
attorneys about their expectations regarding the scope of a temporary injunction. The
trial court expressed its discomfort with giving Horizon “access forever” to be paid
sometime when the lawsuit is over, and with allowing DataBank to merely complain
that it had not been paid what it thought it was owed and deny access to Horizon to
its documents. Horizon’s attorney requested a few minutes for a quick conference.
After a brief break the parties informed the trial court that they had reached a Rule
11 agreement “just to resolve the temporary injunction today.” The parties stated the
agreement on the record in open court and made no mention whatsoever of the TRO.
Thus, the trial court granted an ex parte TRO that would expire in 14 days,
then granted an extension of the TRO for more than 14 days, with the consent of the
party subject to the restraint, until the March 13, 2024, temporary injunction hearing.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 680 (A TRO “shall expire by its terms within such time after
signing, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so
fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the
party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer
period.”). On March 13, 2025, the parties neither extended the TRO by agreement
nor asked the trial court to sign a temporary injunction order. Instead, they expressly
entered into a Rule 11 agreement.
4 On May 19, 2025, Horizon filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of its
“Application for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary Injunction
filed May 14, 2025.” The trial court agreed to hold an evidentiary hearing on May
20, 2025 on Horizon’s request for another Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order,
and attorneys for both parties appeared at the hearing.
In the May 20, 2025, hearing, the trial court stated:
Y’all did an agreed order to extend the TRO to March 13th. You entered into a Rule 11 Agreement on March 13th. Your co-counsel says that that TI hearing was passed. It wasn’t. It happened. But y’all reached an agreement. That’s why there’s a record of your agreement. So it wasn’t passed. But on that day, you reached a new agreement. And the agreement was 60 days to move all of the data to a new server.
Horizon contends the trial court’s statement “is not accurate. The TI hearing
absolutely did not happen.” Horizon fails to distinguish a hearing from a ruling. The
trial court set a hearing on a temporary injunction and ordered mediation. The trial
court called the hearing, the parties appeared and stated their positions regarding the
proper parameters for a temporary injunction, then the parties had a brief negotiation
outside the presence of the court and returned to announce their Rule 11 agreement.
The Rule 11 agreement did not provide for an agreed extension of the TRO, which
at that point was the only way the trial court could grant an extension of the TRO.
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 680. What the parties passed was temporary injunction relief and
the opportunity to present evidence in support of its application for a temporary
5 injunction. While the trial court has not ruled on the application for a temporary
injunction, the parties did not agree to extend the TRO until the trial court signed an
order granting or denying a temporary injunction. The Rule 11 agreement that the
parties made was in lieu of proceeding further on a temporary injunction. There was
no further extension of the TRO. Additionally, Horizon failed to show where in the
course of the May 20, 2025, hearing Horizon argued that the January 25, 2025, TRO
was in effect and could still be enforced. “Due to the extraordinary nature of the
remedy, the right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for action
by the respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous refusal to act.” In re Coppola,
535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding).
As to the ruling of the trial court on May 20, 2025, denying the request for a
second TRO, Horizon argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying
Horizon’s request for a new TRO. Horizon argues the arbitrary nature of the denial
of the TRO is demonstrated by the trial court’s focus on Horizon’s failure to prove
irreparable harm as opposed to monetary harm, Horizon’s failure to prove the harm
it suggested might befall medical patients was not due to Horizon’s conduct and its
failure to negotiate for additional time, and Horizon’s failure to show a likelihood of
success. Horizon argues there has been “absolutely no change in the underlying
cause of action” so it follows that the trial court could not reasonably rule that
Horizon failed to show a probable right to recover on May 25, 2025. We disagree. 6 In the May 20, 2025, hearing, the trial court explained why the circumstances
in the pending litigation had changed and why Horizon was not entitled to another
TRO because it had failed to meet its burden. There was considerable evidence from
which the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Horizon had failed to
show it had a probable right to relief. Horizon provided no testimony or evidence
from any patients or third-party providers and merely alleged there was a risk of
alleged harm to Horizon’s patients, while the affidavit, emails, and other evidence
showed Horizon failed to comply with the deadlines in the Rule 11 Agreement and
neither arranged to migrate its data off of DataBank’s servers nor negotiated a price
to continue services while the litigation continued.
We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by
the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “A trial
court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and
unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827
S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). “A trial court’s failure to analyze or
apply the law correctly is an abuse of discretion.” In re Kappmeyer, 668 S.W.3d 651,
655 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding) (internal quotation omitted).
7 After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude Horizon
failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the
motion for temporary relief, and we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See
Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on May 21, 2025 Opinion Delivered May 22, 2025
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.