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