International Bank of Commerce, D/B/A Ibc David Guerra, Nelson Munoz, and Adrian Villarreal v. Mar-Rox, Inc. Mark A. Cantu

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 2, 2008
• Docket: 13-07-00696-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

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.