In re Crestline Direct Finance, L.P. and Rahul Vaid Appeal from 113th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Memorandum Opinion Dated September 30, 2016, is Withdrawn, Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Corrected Memorandum Opinion filed October 3, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00776-CV IN RE CRESTLINE DIRECT FINANCE, L.P. AND RAHUL VAID, Relators ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 113th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016-65706 CORRECTED MEMORANDUM OPINION1 On September 29, 2016, relators Crestline Direct Finance, L.P. and Rahul Vaid filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable 1 The memorandum opinion dated September 30, 2016, is withdrawn. We issue this corrected memorandum opinion in its place. Michael Landrum, presiding judge of the 113th District Court of Harris County, to vacate a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that the Honorable R.K. Sandill (the ancillary judge) signed on September 28, 2016. In their petition, relators argue that the TRO is void because it does not define the injury that will be suffered absent the entry of the TRO and describe why such unnamed injury is irreparable, as required by Rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. “Mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for an action and a refusal of that request.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 814–15 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding) (citing Axelson, Inc. v. McIlhany, 798 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex. 1990). “But, the requirement that there be a predicate request and adverse ruling is excused when such a request would have been futile and the trial court’s refusal little more than a formality.” Id. at 815. Relators have not shown that they requested the trial court to vacate the TRO for the reasons stated in their petition or that doing so would be futile. We believe that the requirement that relators should first seek relief from the trial court is particularly applicable, when, as here, relators appeared at the hearing on the TRO and the record does not show that relators objected to the TRO on the grounds stated in their petition. Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to refiling after the arguments stated in their petition have been presented to and ruled on by the trial court. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
