in Re Jonathan Hauck

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00640-CV
In re Jonathan Hauck
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Jonathan Hauck filed a petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the district
court abused its discretion by issuing, over Hauck’s objection, a second extension of a temporary
restraining order that violated Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680. We will conditionally grant the writ.
Jonathan Hauck is the respondent in the underlying divorce and suit affecting the
parent-child relationship filed by his wife, Loren Hauck.1 She obtained a TRO “effective immediately”
on September 8, 2014 that, among other things, restrained Jonathan from having any unsupervised
contact with their child. Loren obtained a first extension of the TRO on September 17, 2014. She
obtained a second extension of the TRO, over Jonathan’s objection, on October 1, 2014. Jonathan then
filed this petition for writ of mandamus.
To obtain mandamus relief, relator must show that the trial court clearly abused
its discretion and that relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., L.P.,
226 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (citing In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)). Jonathan contends that the district court
1
We refer to the parties by their first names for clarity.
abused its discretion by granting the second extension of the TRO over his objection and in violation
of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 680. Rule 680 provides in relevant part:
[E]very temporary restraining order granted without notice . . . shall expire by its
terms within such time after signing, not to exceed fourteen days, as the court fixes,
unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like
period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be
extended for a longer period. The reasons for the extension shall be entered of
record. No more than one extension may be granted unless subsequent extensions
are unopposed.
Id. The Texas Supreme Court has held that “Rule 680 governs an extension of a temporary
restraining order, whether issued with or without notice, and permits but one extension for no longer
than fourteen days unless the restrained party agrees to a longer extension.” In re Texas Natural Res.
Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 204-05 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding). The short duration
allowed by Rule 680 is “a critical safeguard against the harm occasioned by a restraint on conduct
that has yet to be subject to a truly adversarial proceeding.” Id. at 206-07. Mandamus is available
for temporary restraining orders that violate the time limitations of Rule 680. Id. at 207.
Here, the district court’s order states that it grants the extension of the TRO—originally
issued on September 8 and already extended once on September 17—despite Jonathan’s objection to
the extension:
On October 1, 2014 the Court considered the Motion to Extend Temporary
Restraining Order of LOREN HAUK, which was opposed by Respondent, and finds
that good cause exists for extension of the temporary restraining order because
movant’s counsel has a conflict with the setting and needs additional time to prepare
for trial.
...
2
This restraining order signed on September 8, 2014 shall continue in force
and effect until further order of this Court or until it expires by operation of law.
...
SIGNED on October 1, 2014 at 4:05 p.m.
The October 1 order extending the TRO for a second time over Jonathan’s objection does not
comply with the requirements of Rule 680, and Loren’s response to Jonathan’s mandamus petition
cites no authority indicating otherwise. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 680. Issuance of that order was an abuse
of the district court’s discretion. See In re Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d
at 204-05. Further, Jonathan has no adequate appellate remedy because TROs are generally not
appealable. See In re Office of Attorney Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding)
(citing In re Texas Natural Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d at 205).2
As such, we conditionally grant Jonathan Hauck’s petition for writ of mandamus.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(c). The writ will issue only if the district court fails to vacate its
October 1, 2014 order granting a second extension of the TRO. The motion for temporary relief is
dismissed as moot.
____________________________________________
Jeff Rose, Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin
Filed: October 13, 2014
2
Because this issue is dispositive of Jonathan’s petition for writ of mandamus, we need not
reach the additional argument presented in his petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
3