- #David reiss attorney pro#
- #David reiss attorney software#
- #David reiss attorney code#
- #David reiss attorney trial#
A trial court abuses its discretion only if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable that exceeds the bounds of reasonable discretion. We review the trial court's ruling on a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction for an abuse of discretion. In their first issue, appellants contend the trial court should have granted their motion to dissolve because the agreed temporary injunction fails to set forth the reasons for its issuance and fails to set the cause for trial on the merits as required by rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.Ī motion to dissolve a temporary injunction is a way to show changed circumstances, changes in the law, or fundamental error has occurred in the issuance of the injunction. On September 28, 2018, the trial court signed an order correcting the clerical error and reflecting the order denying the motion to dissolve was rendered on August 7, 2018.
#David reiss attorney pro#
We directed appellants to file a nunc pro tunc order correcting the date. The trial court's first order denying appellants' motion to dissolve was incorrectly dated June 7, 2018. The trial court modified the March 28 agreed temporary injunction again on August 28 in response to Hanson's emergency motion to modify. Later, the trial court signed an order denying appellants' motion to dissolve. On July 13, the trial court signed an agreed order modifying the March 28 agreed temporary injunction. Rather than the trial court ruling on the motion to modify based on that evidentiary hearing, the parties once again reached an agreement.
The trial court held a hearing on the motions on June 22. On May 10, appellants moved to dissolve the agreed temporary injunction. Hanson filed a motion to modify the agreed temporary injunction on May 2.
The trial court granted the other defendants' special appearances leaving Hanson as the sole defendant in the case. The agreed temporary injunction also provided that the "efendants shall have the sole responsibility and authority to pay Spy Games' usual and customary business expenses" and that "Reiss shall not interfere with the payment of those expenses."
#David reiss attorney software#
Among other things, the agreed temporary injunction enjoined the parties from changing passwords or access to Spy Games' software or accounts, diverting funds from merchant accounts for daily deposits, or making any bill payment to an account other than Spy Games' company account at Iberiabank in Dallas. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court signed a temporary injunction based upon the agreement of the parties and not the result of the trial court's findings regarding the evidentiary hearing. On March 28, the trial court held a hearing on appellants' request for a temporary injunction. The trial court signed a temporary restraining order in February 2018. Hanson, the two interest holders in the company, appellants sued Hanson and others for various causes of action seeking both monetary and injunctive relief. After the relationship deteriorated between David Reiss and Jason R. This case arises out of a dispute over the ownership and control of Spy Games, a limited liability company formed under the laws of Wyoming. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying appellants' motion and dissolve the temporary injunction. We conclude the agreed temporary injunction is void because the order fails to set the cause for trial on the merits as required by rule 683. In two issues, appellants argue the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dissolve the temporary injunction because (1) it fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of rule 683 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and (2) Reiss is the majority interest holder in Spy Games as a matter of law and therefore has the right to control the company under applicable corporate governance laws.
#David reiss attorney code#
DC-18-02498-J MEMORANDUM OPINIONīefore Justices Bridges, Partida-Kipness, and Carlyleĭavid Reiss and Spy Games, LLC filed this accelerated interlocutory appeal pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4) challenging the trial court's denial of their motion to dissolve an agreed temporary injunction. On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
0 kommentar(er)
