This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion clarifying the technical requirements Rule 683 imposes on a temporary injunction. According to the Court, a TI must include a specific trial date lest it be void, even, as in this case, when the trial court in the underlying lawsuit (Hays County District Court here) has also granted a motion to compel arbitration, effectively precluding the possibility of a trial.
The Court of Appeals also notes that, at the time the TI was entered, the motion to compel arbitration had not yet been filed; the Court almost suggests, in dicta, that had the TI identified a date set to begin arbitration, it might have passed muster under Rule 683:
Without a date set to begin arbitration or trial, La Ventana is not protected from the risk that this temporary injunction could effectively become a permanent injunction. [citation omitted] The trial court could have accounted for the possibility of arbitration and also adhered to Rule 683 by setting the case for trial on a specific date and, in the event that arbitration occurred before that, removing the case from the docket.
Cause No. 03-05-00234-CV
