Hanlon Gas Processing, Ltd. and Permian Leasing, L.L.C. v. Eastland County Guardian, Inc.

Order filed November 30, 2012 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-12-00334-CV __________ HANLON GAS PROCESSING, LTD. AND PERMIAN LEASING, L.L.C., Appellants V. EASTLAND COUNTY GUARDIAN, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 91st District Court Eastland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV1242829 O R D E R This is an interlocutory appeal from an order granting a temporary injunction. Appellants, Hanlon Gas Processing, Ltd. and Permian Leasing, L.L.C., have filed an emergency motion for temporary relief pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 29.3 seeking an order from this court increasing the amount of the bond ordered by the trial court from $25,000 to $1,248,000. We deny the motion. As set forth in IAC, Ltd. v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 160 S.W.3d 191, 203 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.): The trial court is required to set a bond when it grants a temporary injunction. Tex. R. Civ. P. 684. The applicant must post the bond, and it is payable to the adverse party if the temporary injunction is dissolved at trial. Id. The purpose of a bond is to provide protection to the enjoined party for any possible damages occurring as a result of the injunction. Bayoud v. Bayoud, 797 S.W.2d 304, 312 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1990, writ denied). The determination of the adequacy of the bond set by the trial court is to be made on a case-by-case basis based upon the record before the reviewing court. Maples v. Muscletech, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 429, 431 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2002, no pet.); Stone v. Griffin Communications & Sec. Sys., Inc., 53 S.W.3d 687, 696 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2001, no pet.). The amount of a bond is within the trial court’s sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Four Stars Food Mart, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 923 S.W.2d 266, 269 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996, no writ); Khaledi v. H.K. Global Trading, Ltd., 126 S.W.3d 273, 286 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003, no pet.); Maples, 74 S.W.3d at 431. The record before us does not indicate that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of the bond for the issuance of the temporary injunction.[1] It is the movant’s burden in a proceeding such as this to make a clear showing that it is entitled to relief. Maples, 74 S.W.3d at 432. The evidence in the record cited by appellants does not make a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion in setting the amount of the bond. The damages that appellants are claiming as a result of the temporary injunction are speculative in that they are predicated on a future contract that appellants are negotiating or on a current contract that a customer might terminate. Additionally, appellants’ evidence is based solely on expected gross revenues rather than lost profits. Id. (A showing of only expected gross revenue is insufficient to show potential losses that might result from a challenged injunction.). Furthermore, appellants are asserting a potential loss of all of the money they have spent on repairing an entire pipeline system while the temporary injunction only involves a temporary delay of repairing a portion of the pipeline. Accordingly, the emergency motion for temporary relief is denied. November 30, 2012 PER CURIAM Panel consists of: McCall, J.; Gray, C.J., 10th Court of Appeals[2]; and Hill.[3] Wright, C.J., not participating. [1]The trial court originally set a bond in the amount of $2,500 to be paid by appellee, Eastland County Guardian, Inc., for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. The trial court increased the amount of the bond to $25,000 in its order granting the temporary injunction. [2]Tom Gray, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 10th District of Texas at Waco, sitting by assignment to the 11th Court of Appeals. [3]John G. Hill, Former Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.