in Re Efrem D. Sewell and Milo Shepard ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed January
    26, 2012.
    In The
    Fourteenth Court of Appeals
    NO. 14-12-00044-CV
    IN RE EFREM D. SEWELL AND MILO SHEPARD, Relators
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    151st District Court
    Harris County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 2011-37278
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    On January 18, 2012, relators Efrem D. Sewell and Milo Shepard filed a petition
    for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R.
    App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Mike
    Engelhart, presiding judge of the 151st District Court of Harris County to dissolve a
    temporary injunction entered November 2, 2011.
    This original proceeding arises from a lawsuit between Hardriders, Inc., a
    motorcycle club, and two of its members, Efrem Sewell and Milo Shepard. Hardriders,
    Inc. filed suit against relators seeking an injunction to prevent relators from forming a
    separate motorcycle club using the Hardriders name.         Hardriders, Inc. obtained a
    temporary injunction ordering relators to “immediately cease and desist from pursuing
    the completion and approval of the trademark application[.]” Relators were further
    ordered to “immediately turnover all account passwords, access codes, and all other
    information necessary for the use, control, and access to the website domain
    www.hardridersmc.com, and cease and desist from disabling, altering, cancelling, or in
    any way encumbering Plaintiff Hardriders, Inc.’s use, control, access, or further
    enjoyment to the website.” Trial is set for June 18, 2012.
    To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, relators must
    show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and they have no adequate remedy
    by appeal. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 
    256 S.W.3d 257
    , 259 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).
    Mandamus may not be used as a form of interlocutory appeal. N.H. Helicopters, Inc. v.
    Brown, 
    841 S.W.2d 424
    , 425 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, orig. proceeding).              Section
    51.014(a)(4) specifically provides for an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a
    temporary injunction. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4).                 An
    interlocutory appeal provides an adequate remedy. See In re Henry, 
    274 S.W.3d 185
    ,
    189 n. 2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding).
    Because relators can appeal the temporary injunction, they have an adequate
    remedy by appeal, and have not established their entitlement to the extraordinary relief of
    a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and
    also deny relator’s related motion for temporary relief.
    PER CURIAM
    Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Boyce.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-12-00044-CV

Filed Date: 1/26/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/23/2015