Radiant Darkstar Production, LLC v. Philip B. Sauer

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 16, 2013
Docket05-13-00573-CV
StatusPublished

This text of Radiant Darkstar Production, LLC v. Philip B. Sauer (Radiant Darkstar Production, LLC v. Philip B. Sauer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Radiant Darkstar Production, LLC v. Philip B. Sauer, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

DISMISS and Opinion Filed July 16, 2013.

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00573-CV

RADIANT DARKSTAR PRODUCTION, LLC, Appellant V. PHILIP B. SAUER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02152

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans Opinion by Justice Lang This is an appeal from the trial court’s April 4, 2013 order overruling Radiant Darkstar

Productions, LLC’s motion to dissolve prejudgment writs of garnishment and emergency motion

to release funds deposited in the registry of the court. Because it appeared these interlocutory

orders were unappealable, we directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing our jurisdiction

over the appeal. See In re Tex. Am. Express, Inc., 190 S.W.3d 720, 727 (Tex. App.—2005, orig.

proceeding) (“As a general rule, writs and orders issued to aid judgment creditors in collecting

on their judgments are not appealable.”). In its letter brief, Radiant Darkstar stated it had also

filed a petition for writ of mandamus and had brought the appeal “in an abundance of caution” in

the event certain portions of the challenged orders were determined to be injunctive in nature.

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)(4) (West Supp. 2012) (allowing appeal

from interlocutory order of district court granting or refusing a temporary injunction or granting or overruling a motion to dissolve temporary injunction). By opinion filed June 25, 2013, the

Court conditionally granted Darkstar’s petition for writ of mandamus, specifically finding

Darkstar has no adequate remedy at law. See In re Radiant Darkstar Prod., L.L.C., 05-13-

00586-CV, 2013 WL 3239672 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 25, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Because the complained of orders are unappealable interlocutory orders and in light of this

Court’s June 25th opinion, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Tex. Am.

Express, 190 S.W.3d at 727.

/Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE

130573F.P05

–2– Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

RADIANT DARKSTAR PRODUCTION, On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District LLC, Appellant Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-02152. No. 05-13-00573-CV V. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Myers and Evans participating. PHILIP B. SAUER, Appellee

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellee Philip B. Sauer recover his costs of this appeal from appellant Radiant Darkstar Production, LLC.

Judgment entered this 16th day of July, 2013.

–3–

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Texas American Express, Inc.
190 S.W.3d 720 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Radiant Darkstar Production, LLC v. Philip B. Sauer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radiant-darkstar-production-llc-v-philip-b-sauer-texapp-2013.