Michael J. DeLitta v. Nancy Schaefer

ACCEPTED
03-15-00280-CV
5703544
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
CAUSE NO. 03-15-00280-CV AUSTIN, TEXAS
6/16/2015 8:03:12 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
In the Third Court of Appeals
Austin, Texas FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
6/16/2015 8:03:12 PM
MICHAEL J. DELITTA JEFFREY D. KYLE
Appellant Clerk
v.
NANCY SCHAEFER
Appellee
Appeal from the 201st Judicial District Court
Travis County, Texas; Cause No. D-1-GN-13-003516
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
DRUCKER | HOPKINS LLP
Douglas R. Drucker
Texas Bar No. 06136100
Kirby D. Hopkins
Texas Bar No. 24034488
21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
281.362.2863 (phone)
855.558.1745 (fax)
drucker@druckerhopkins.com (email)
hopkins@druckerhopkins.com (email)
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
MICHAEL J. DELITTA
Identity of Parties and Counsel
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1, Appellant
submits the following designation of parties and counsel, and trial court:
APPELLANT: Michael J. DeLitta
(Defendant in Underlying Suit)
APPELLANT’S Douglas R. Drucker
COUNSEL: Kirby D. Hopkins
Drucker | Hopkins LLP
21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
APPELLEE: Nancy Schaefer
(Plaintiff in Underlying Suit)
APPELLEE’S COUNSEL: Lisa Bowlin Hobbs
Kurt Kuhn
Kuhn Hobbs PLLC
3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
Howard F. (Sam) Carter
The Carter Law Firm
14185 Dallas Parkway
Suite 1275
Dallas, Texas 75254
Donald Taylor
Taylor Dunham and Rodriguez, LLP
301 Congress Avenue
Suite 1050
Austin, Texas 78701
2
ADDITIONAL PARTIES: Jeff Compton
(Provisional Member and Limited-
Receiver of Certain Defendants)
Axiom Medical Consulting, LLC,
Axiom Professionals, LLC, and
Axiom Properties, LLC
ADDITIONAL PARTIES’ For Provisional Member Jeff Compton
COUNSEL: and Axiom entities:
Eric J. Taube
Hohmann, Taube & Summers, LLP
100 Congress Avenue
18th Floor
Austin, Texas 78701
TRIAL COURT: Honorable Orlinda Naranjo
201st Judicial District Court
Travis County, Texas
3
Table of Contents
Identity of Parties and Counsel ............................................................... 2
Table of Contents .................................................................................... 4
Table of Authorities ................................................................................. 6
Codes and Regulations ............................................................................8
Statement of the Case .............................................................................. 9
Statement regarding Oral Argument..................................................... 10
Issues Presented ..................................................................................... 11
Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting the Temporary
Injunction on April 22, 2015?.............................................................. 11
Statement of Facts ................................................................................. 12
Summary of Argument .......................................................................... 14
Argument ……………….……………………………………………………..……..…….15
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the
Temporary Injunction on April 22, 2015. ................................ 15
1. Appellee Schaefer lacks standing and failed to assert a viable
cause of action. ................................................................................ 16
2. Appellee Schaefer failed to demonstrate a probable right of
recovery........................................................................................... 18
3. There is no probable, imminent threat of irreparable harm.
Appellee Schaefer unreasonable delayed in asserting this request. A
temporary Injunction is not necessary to maintain the status quo
here.………………………………………………………………………………………21
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 24
Prayer .................................................................................................... 24
4
Certificate of Compliance ...................................................................... 25
Certificate of Service.............................................................................. 26
Appendix ............................................................................................... 27
5
Table of Authorities
Cases
Page(s)
BUTNARU V. FORD MOTOR CO.,
84 S.W.3d 198, 203, 205, 208 (Tex. 2002)………………………………….15, 16
STATE V. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TEL. CO.,
526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975) (orig. proceeding)...............................15
TOM JAMES OF DALLAS INC. V. COBB,
109 S.W.3d 877, 882 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002, no pet.)...…….………15, 16
WALKER V. PACKER,
827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) ……………………..…..……..………….….…15
VALENZUELA V. AQUINO,
853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993)………………………..…………..……….………16
DAVIS V. HENDRICK AUTOGUARD, INC.,
294 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. App. Dallas—2009, no pet.)……….….……17, 18
SPURLOCK V. JOHNSON,
94 S.W.3d 655, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, no pet.)…….….........18
AGUILAR V. CHASTAIN,
923 S.W.2d 740, 745 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1996, writ denied)…………….......18
FOX V. TROPICAL WAREHOUSE, INC.,
121 S.W.3d 853, 861 (Tex. App.–Ft. Worth 2003, no pet.)……………22, 23
JORDAN V. LANDRY’S SEAFOOD REST., INC.
89 S.W.3d 737, 742
(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet. denied)……………………………23
JONES V. JEFFERSON CTY.,
15 S.W.3d 206, 213 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2002, pet. denied) …………..23
MATRIX NETWORK, INC. V. GINN.,
211 S.W.3d 944, 947-48 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.)..…..…….……23
6
EMSL ANALYTICAL INC. V. YOUNKER,
154 S.W.3d 693, 697
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.)………………………………23
7
Codes and Regulations
TEX. OCC. CODE
Section 101.204 ………………………………………………………………….......16, 17
TEX. OCC. CODE
Section 204.302 …………………….…………………………………………........16, 17
TEX. OCC. CODE
Section 1304.202 …..………………………………………………………………........17
TEX. PENAL CODE
Section 32.52 …………………..………………………………………………...17, 18, 19
8
Statement of the Case
Appellee Schaefer filed this lawsuit on October 9, 2013.1 The case
is a dispute between 50-50 owners of Defendants Axiom Medical
Consulting, LLC, Axiom Professionals, LLC, and Axiom Properties, LLC
(the Axiom entities). This case is presently set for trial on the merits on
October 26, 2015.
On December 12, 2014, Schaefer filed a Verified Application for
Temporary Injunction seeking to prohibit DeLitta from representing
himself as a Medical Doctor.2 The temporary injunction hearing was
held on April 15, 2015 before the Honorable Judge Orlinda Naranjo.
Judge Naranjo entered a Temporary Injunction Order on April 22,
2015.3 In the order, it is written that May 22, 2015 is the date signed and
entered, but the correct date is actually April 22, 2015. See CLERK’S
FILE STAMP. 4
DeLitta gave Notice of Appeal from this Temporary Injunction
Order on May 11, 2015.5
1 Plaintiff’s Original Petition and Application for Temporary Injunction. C.R. pages
3-114.
2 Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction pages.
C.R. pages 323-359.
3 Temporary Injunction Order. C.R. pages 624-631.
4 Temporary Injunction Order. C.R. pages 624-631.
5 Defendant’s Notice of Accelerated Appeal. C.R. pages 642-645.
9
Statement regarding Oral Argument
Appellant is not requesting oral argument.
10
Issues Presented
Issue: Did the trial court abuse its discretion in granting the
Temporary Injunction on April 22, 2015?
11
Statement of Facts
Schaefer-Appellee and DeLitta-Appellant are each 50% members
of the Axiom entities. While Schaefer remains a 50% member, she was
terminated as Vice-President by DeLitta on September 23, 2013. DeLitta
was President then, and still is.
Schaefer filed suit against DeLitta, the Axiom entities, and another
entity that DeLitta owned (Delcom Properties, LLC) on October 9, 2013.6
DeLitta and Schaefer had worked together in the Axiom entities’
business since 2001.7
On December 12, 2014, Schaefer filed her Verified Application for
Temporary Injunction from representing himself as a medical doctor.8
Schaefer did not set a hearing on its application for Temporary
Injunction until April 15, 2015. At the April 15, 2015 hearing, DeLitta
and Schaefer both testified.9 Schaefer presented one other witness,
Shane Enoch.10 DeLitta presented two other witnesses Kristi Loritz and
Meredith Sloam.11 Exhibits were also offered and admitted into
6 C.R. 3-114.
7 R.R. Volume 2, P65 L25 – P66 L2.
8 C.R. 323-359.
9 R.R. Volume 2, pages 45-80 (DeLitta), pages 84-98 (Schaefer).
10 R.R. Volume 2, pages 23-36.
11 R.R. Volume 2, pages 99-102 (Loritz), pages 104-106 (Sloam).
12
evidence. 12, 13 On April 22, 2015, the Temporary Injunction Order was
entered.14 DeLitta gave Notice of Appeal on May 11, 2015. The Reporter’s
Record was filed on May 21, 2015 and the Clerks Record filed on May 20,
2015.
12 Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1-12. R.R. Volume 3. Defendant’s Exhibits 1, 4, 20, 21, and 24.
R.R. Volume 3.
13 Affidavits of fact witness attached to the Verified Application for Temporary
Injunction are not evidence, but inadmissible hearsay, and were not admitted.
14 C.R. 624-631.
13
Summary of the Argument
Schaefer’s Application for a Temporary Injunction to prohibit
DeLitta from representing himself as a medical doctor is based on two
sections of the Texas Occupational Code and one section of the Texas
Penal Code.
The Temporary Injunction should be reversed and rendered as
denied and dissolved because Schaefer failed to establish that she has a
probable right of recovery. The foregoing code sections, upon which the
application for temporary injunction is based, do not create or allow a
private civil cause of action. Also, even if the code sections did apply,
Schaefer has failed to prove one or more necessary elements to be
entitled to any injunctive relief.
Furthermore, Schaefer unreasonable delayed in asserting this
claim. Although suit was filed on October 9, 2013,15 Schaefer waited until
December 12, 2014, over a year later, to file this Application for
Temporary Injunction. And then, she did not set it for hearing until April
15, 2015. The conduct complained of was known for many years.
Schaefer’s evidence of the threat of imminent irreparable harm amounts
15 Plaintiff’s Original Petition. C.R. pages 3-114.
14
to only her fear and apprehension of harm to the Axiom entities. This is
speculative and not sufficient to support a temporary injunction. Thus,
a temporary injunction is not needed to maintain the status quo here.
Argument and Authorities
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the
Temporary Injunction on April 22, 2015.
Appellate review of the temporary injunction is limited to whether
the trial court clearly abused its discretion Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co. 84
S.W.3d 198, 205 (Tex. 2002). The trial court abuses its discretion when
it misapplies the law to established facts, or when it concludes that there
is a probable right of recovery or a probable, imminent, irreparable
harm, and those conclusions are not reasonably supported by the
evidence. Butnaru 84 S.W.3d 198, 203, 208; State v. Southwestern Bell
Tel. Co. 526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975). The appellate court may
review de novo any determinations of law the trial court made in support
of the temporary injunction order. Tom James of Dallas vs. Cobb 109 S.
W. 3d 377, 883 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2003, no pet.); see Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo
pending trial on the merits. A temporary injunction is an extraordinary
15
remedy and does not issue as a matter of right. Butnaru 84 S.W.3d at
203. To obtain a temporary injunction the applicant must plead and
prove (i) a cause of action against the defendant (ii) a probable right
that it will recover on the relief sought at final trial on the merits and (iii)
a probable, imminent and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru 84
S.W.3d 198 at 203; Tom James 109 S.W.3d at 882. A viable cause of
action recognized under Texas law for the conduct complained of must
be pled. Valenzuela v. Aquino 853 S.W.2d 512, 513 (Tex. 1993) (because
Texas has no cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress
trial court could not enjoin).
1. Appellee Schaefer lacks standing and failed to assert a viable
cause of action.
The legal basis for Schaefer’s Application for Temporary
Injunction to enjoin DeLitta from representing himself as a Medical
Doctor (filed on December 12, 2014) is stated to be “a violation of Mr.
DeLitta’s obligations under the Physician’s Licensing Act, and a
violation of a specific criminal statute”16 – namely, Section 101.204 of
the TEX. OCC. CODE, Section 204.302 (3), (4) and (8) of the TEX. OCC.
16Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction. C.R.
pages 323-359 at 324.
16
CODE, and Section 32.52 of the TEX. PENAL CODE.17 (emphasis added).
Yet, Schaefer lacks standing,18 as no private civil cause of action exists
under the foregoing code provisions.
Section 101.204 of the TEX. OCC. CODE sets forth the available
remedies and specifically states “A violation of Section 101.201 does not
create a private cause of action.” See Section 101.204 (c). (emphasis
added). And Section 204.302 of the TEX. OCC. CODE is predicated on
the statement, “The physician assistant board may take action under
Section 204.302 against an applicant or license holder who: . . . ,” and
then enumerates the prohibited conduct including the conduct
referenced in Section 101.201. (emphasis added). These sections simply
do not provide for an individual private cause of action. Davis v.
Hendrick Autoguard Inc., 294 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2009, no pet.) (holding that, where it is stated to be the responsibility of
executive director of Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and
commission to enforce provisions of TEX. OCC. CODE Section 1304.202,
17 Plaintiff’s Verified Application for Temporary and Permanent Injunction. C.R.
pages 323-359 at 325 and 326.
18 R.R. Volume 2, P10 L21-P12 L21 ( specifically, P11 L12-14), P16 L 5-20, P118 L13-
25.
17
that language gives only the administrative agencies the power to
enforce, and a private right of action is not created).
Similarly, Section 32.52 of the Texas Penal Code does not create a
civil cause of action. Generally, the Texas Penal Code does not create a
private causes of action. Spurlock v. Johnson, 94 S.W.3d 655, 657 (Tex.
App.–San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (citing Aguilar v. Chastain 923
S.W.2d. 740, 745 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1996, writ denied)).
2. Appellee Schaefer failed to demonstrate a probable right of
recovery.
Section 32.52 of the Texas Penal Code sets forth the elements of
the alleged offense. And Section 32.52 (b) Texas Penal Code requires
proof the person knows they have a fraudulent, fictitious or revoked
degree.
Here, there is no finding DeLitta’s Ph.D. is fictitious, fraudulent, or
has been revoked. The court’s finding is that DeLitta has a Ph.D. from
Newport University.19, 20 It is common knowledge that Ph.D.’s are
19C.R. 624-631 (Finding No. 5, “DeLitta has a Ph.D in Psychology from Newport
University.”).
20 The Newport University that DeLitta has a Ph.D. from is Newport University of
Newport, California, which later changed its name to Janus University in 2011 (R.R.
Volume 3, Defendant’s Exhibit 1; DeLitta testimony, R.R. P61, L14 – P63, L3). It is
not the Newport University of Hawaii and Lebanon referred to by Schaefer (R.R.
Volume 3, Defendant’s Exhibit 24). Neither Newport University of Newport,
18
routinely referred to, or refer to themselves, as Dr. or Doctor, as
Schaefer’s witness conceded.21 The degree he obtained is a Doctorate. 22
And DeLitta admits he was not a medical doctor, M.D.
Section 32.52 (2) (A) also requires proof that the person “uses the
degree or claims to hold the degree in a written or oral advertisement
or other promotion of a business as a necessary element of the offense.”
(emphasis added).
But DeLitta never used the title Medical Doctor or M.D., either
verbally or in any written advertisement or other promotion of the
business. Axiom business advertisements, promotional material, and
all e-mails or correspondence admitted into evidence refer only to
DeLitta, Dr. DeLitta, or Mike DeLitta Ph.D., P.A.23 None state that
DeLitta is a medical doctor or M.D.
As background, DeLitta, in addition to earning his Ph.D., is a
licensed physician’s assistant with a physician’s assistant degree from
UCLA Medical School.24 And there is no dispute that DeLitta is a
California nor Janus are listed in Defendant’s Exhibit 24 (R.R. Volume 3) as being
unauthorized degrees for use in the State of Texas.
21 R.R. Volume 2, P40 L3-7.
22 Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6. R.R. Volume 3.
23 Defendant’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3 4, 5, and 21, R.R. Volume 3; R.R. Volume 2, P53 L3-
L21.
24 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P60 L19-L25.
19
properly licensed and degreed physician’s assistant. DeLitta was
formerly the Medical Director at Atlantic Richfield Corp. (ARCO) based
in California.25 At Axiom Medical Consulting, DeLitta has a supervising
physician — Nora Hart who is a medical doctor.26 In sum, DeLitta is the
CEO and President of the Axiom entities – with Ph.D. and P.A. degrees,
but he is not a medical doctor.
The only witness called by Schaefer (other than herself) was Shane
Enoch, a former employee that had been terminated by Axiom.27 He
worked from his home in Oklahoma as a nurse. While he said he
subjectively thought DeLitta was a medical doctor, he conceded that he
was never told that, nor was he ever instructed to call DeLitta a Medical
Doctor or M.D.28 Appellant’s witnesses – Kristie Loritz, a nursing
supervisor, and Meredith Sloam, a long-time office employee – both
testified that DeLitta (i) never told them to tell employees or customers
25 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P59 L18-L24.
26 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P61 L5-L10.
27 Enoch testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P36 L19-L21.
28 Enoch testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P36 L14-L18.
20
that he was a medical doctor and (ii) never referred to himself as such.29
Both knew that he was not a medical doctor.30
There was a credit card that Schaefer referenced that has MD after
DeLitta’s name. But it is a personal credit card not regularly used in the
business.31 On the stand, DeLitta explained that this was a mistake by
the issuing bank, as he had checked a box on the application that said
doctor.32 This is supported by the fact that DeLitta’s other credit cards
do not have that designation.33 The vanity license plate that Schaefer
referenced – “occ doc” – is on DeLitta’s wife’s personal car. 34
In sum, no evidence was presented by Schaefer (i) that either was
used in any advertisement or other promotion of the business or (ii) of
any damage or potential damage to the Axiom entities.
3. There is no probable, imminent threat of irreparable harm.
Appellee Schaefer unreasonable delayed in asserting this
request. And a temporary injunction is not necessary to
maintain the status quo here.
29 Loritz testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P101 L17-L23. Sloam testimony. R.R. Volume
2 P106 L8-L14.
30 Loritz testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P101 L24-P102 L3. Sloam testimony R.R.
Volume 2 P106 L15-L17.
31 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2 P62 L12-L15.
32 DeLitta testimony. R.R Volume 2, P63 L8-L16.
33 Defendant’s Exhibit 20. R.R. Volume 3.
34 DeLitta testimony. R.R. Volume 2, P55 L11-P56 L2.
21
Although their lawsuit was filed on October 9, 2013, Schaefer did
not file this Application for Temporary Injunction until December 12,
2014 and did not set it for a hearing until April 15, 2015. Schaefer was
aware of the alleged facts giving rise to her complaint for many years –
she’s worked at Axiom since 200135 and abandoned the issue in 2010. 36
In fact, back on October 17, 2013, one of her advisors – Carol Stryker –
suggested that raising this precise issue may be a way to apply pressure
in the litigation (about 18 months before the trial court’s hearing on the
issue).37 Such a long delay in bringing the issue before the trial court
shows by itself that there is no imminent threat of irreparable harm here.
Without imminence and irreparability, injunctive relief should not have
been granted.
Further, Schaefer has presented no evidence that there is any
imminent threat or any irreparable harm. Schaefer’s testimony is that
she has a fear or apprehension of the possibility of an injury.38 Fear and
apprehension of injury is speculative and not sufficient to support a
temporary injunction. Fox v. Tropical Warehouse, Inc. 121 S.W.3d 853,
35 R.R. Volume 2, P65 L25 – P66 L2.
36 Defendant’s Exhibit 21 (November 18, 2010 Emails to/from Schaefer and
Delitta). R.R. Volume 3.
37 Defendant’s Exhibit 23. R.R. Volume 3.
38 Schaefer testimony. R.R. Volume 2, P91 L21 – P92 L7.
22
861 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2003, no pet.); Jordan v. Landry’s Seafood
Rest., Inc., 89 S.W.3d 737, 742 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet.
denied) (op on reh’g); Jones v. Jefferson Cty. 15 S.W. 3d. 206, 213 (Tex.
App.—Texarkana 2000, pet. denied); see Matrix Network, Inc. v. Ginn
211 S.W.3d 944, 947-48 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); EMSL
Analytical Inc. v. Younker 154 S.W.3d 693, 697 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.).
The delay, which shows acquiescence and works as a waiver, and
lack of any evidence of harm here both show that injunctive relief was
granted in error. Moreover, the injunctive relief granted interrupts,
rather than maintains, the status quo. As it stands, defendant DeLitta,
although having a Ph.D., cannot use the title he earned, even though
there is no credible evidence in the record that he held himself out as a
medical doctor.
23
Conclusion
Appellee Schaefer failed to both plead and prove a viable cause of
action. Assuming a private cause of action even existed under the cited
code provisions, Schaefer failed to prove all the necessary elements.
Schaefer also failed to demonstrate an imminent threat of irreparable
harm, or need to maintain the status quo.
Prayer
Appellant requests that the April 22, 2015 Temporary Injunction
Order be reversed and rendered as denied and dissolved.
Respectfully submitted,
DRUCKER | HOPKINS LLP
/s/ Douglas R. Drucker
Douglas R. Drucker
Texas Bar No. 06136100
Kirby D. Hopkins
Texas Bar No. 24034488
21 Waterway Avenue, Suite 300
The Woodlands, Texas 77380
281.362.2863 (phone)
855.558.1745 (fax)
drucker@druckerhopkins.com (email)
hopkins@druckerhopkins.com (email)
ATTORNEYS FOR
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
MICHAEL J. DELITTA
24
Certificate of Compliance
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4, the
undersigned certifies that the number of words in this computer-
generated document (according to the Word program’s word count
function)—excluding the captions, identity of parties and counsel,
statement regarding oral argument, table of contents, index of
authorities, statement of the case, statement of issues presented,
signature, proof of service, certification, certificate of compliance, and
appendix—is 2,005 (text) and 385 (footnotes), for a total of 2,385.
Date: June 12, 2015 /s/ Douglas R. Drucker
Douglas R. Drucker
25
Certificate of Service
Per Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6 and 9.5, I certify that I
have served this document on all other parties on June 12, 2015 as
follows:
Howard F. Carter via Electronic-filing
The Carter Law Firm
14185 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1275
Dallas, Texas 75254
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SHAEFER
Donald Taylor via Electronic-filing
Taylor Dunham & Rodriguez, LLP
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1050
Austin, Texas 78701
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SHAEFER
Lisa Bowlin Hobbs via Electronic-filing
Kurt Kuhn
Kuhn Hobbs PLLC
3307 Northland Drive, Suite 310
Austin, Texas 78731
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF NANCY SCHAEFER
Eric J. Taube via Electronic-filing
Hohmann, Taube & Summers LLP
100 Congress Avenue
18th Floor
Austin, Texas 78701
COUNSEL FOR PROVISIONAL MEMBER JEFF COMPTON OF CERTAIN
DEFENDANTS, AND OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS
Date: June 12, 2015 /s/ Douglas R. Drucker
Douglas R. Drucker
26
Appendix
The following constitutes the Appendix as required by Texas Rules
of Appellate Procedure 38.1(k):
Appendix A: Temporary Injunction Order signed by Judge
Orlinda Naranjo
Appendix B: TEX. OCC. CODE
Section 204.302
TEX. OCC. CODE
Section 101.204
TEX. OCC. CODE
Section 1304.202
TEX. PENAL CODE
Section 32.52
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
1