Victory Cheval Holdings, LLC Garrett Jennings And Castle Crown Management, LLC v. Dennis Antolik Victor Antolik And Cheval Manor, Inc. D/B/A Austin Polo Club

ACCEPTED
03-15-00464-CV
6791249
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
9/3/2015 4:21:56 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
NO. 03-15-00464-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
FOR THE 9/3/2015 4:21:56 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT Clerk

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

VICTORY CHEVAL HOLDINGS, LLC, GARRETT JENNINGS
AND CASTLE CROWN MANAGEMENT, LLC,

Appellants

v.

DENNIS ANTOLIK, VICTOR ANTOLIK
and CHEVAL MANOR, INC.,

Appellees

SUPPLEMENT TO APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO APPELLEES
DENNIS ANTOLIK'S AND CHEVAL MANOR, INC'S
MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
AND REFERRAL TO TRIAL COURT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
Appellants, Victory Cheval Holdings, LLC, Garrett Jennings and Castle
Crown Management, LLC, submit the following Supplement to their Response to
Appellees Dennis Antolik's and Cheval Manor, Inc.'s Motion for Contempt and
Referral to Trial Court (the "Motion") as follows:
1. Attached hereto is the Affidavit of Garrett Jennings in support of the
factual allegations contained in the Response.
 2. In addition to the reasons for denying the Motion set forth in the
Response, Appellants would also urge the Court to deny the Response for the reason
that the Temporary Injunction is void for failure to meet the mandatory specificity
requirements of Rule 683, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. This is an issue that will
be addressed at length in Appellants' Brief on the merits of the appeal, but a summary
of the argument is as follows:
A. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683
In pertinent part, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 provides:

[e]very order granting an injunction and every restraining
order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be
specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail and
not by reference to the complaint or other document, the
act or acts sought to be restrained....1
A trial court’s order stating its reasons for a temporary injunction must be
specific and legally sufficient on its face and not merely conclusory.2 To comply with
Rule 683, a trial court must set out in the order the reasons the court deems it proper
to issue the injunction, including the reasons why the applicant will suffer injury if
the injunctive relief is not ordered.3
"The requirements of Rule 683 are mandatory and must be strictly followed."4
If a temporary injunction fails to meet the requirements of Rule 683, it is void.5
B. The Trial Court's July 16, 2015 Temporary Injunction
The trial court's temporary injunction recites that it

1
Tex.R.Civ.P. 683.
2
Reliant Hosp. Partners, LLC v. Cornerstone Healthcare Grp. Holdings, Inc., 374 S.W.3d 488, 495
(Tex.App.-Dallas 2012, pet. denied).
3
El Tacaso, Inc. v. Jireh Star, Inc., 356 S.W.3d 740, 744 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2011, no pet.).
4
In re Krueger, No. 03-12-00838-CV, 2013 WL 2157765, *5 (Tex.App.-Austin May 16, 2013, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.), quoting, Interfirst Bank San Felipe, N.A. v. Paz Constr. Co., 715 S.W.2d
640, 641 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam).
5
Reliant Hosp. Partners, LLC, 374 S.W.3d at 495, citing, El Tacaso, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 744.

2
 ...is necessary and proper as a temporary injunction in
order to prevent harm, injury or loss to the parties,
including injury to persons and property, during the
pendency of this matter.6

C. The Trial Court's Injunction is Void.
In the present case, the trial court's injunction is conclusory, and does not
specify the reasons why the Antoliks will suffer irreparable harm for which there is
no adequate remedy at law. Accordingly, as a matter of law, the injunction is fatally
defective.7
WHEREFORE, Appellants respectfully pray that the Motion for Contempt be
denied and for general relief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kemp Gorthey
Kemp W. Gorthey
State Bar No. 08221275
Kendall L. Bryant
State Bar No. 24058660
THE GORTHEY LAW FIRM
604 West 12th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Tele: 512/236-8007
Fax: 512/479-6417
Email: kemp@gortheylaw.com
Email: kendall@gortheylaw.com
6
CR 300.
7
El Tacaso, Inc., 356 S.W.3d at 747 (the trial court's temporary injunction simply recited the
conclusory statement that the applicant showed that it would suffer an irreparable injury for
which it had no other adequate legal remedy, but such conclusory statement did not satisfy the
Rule 683 requirement that a temporary injunction order specify the reasons why the applicant
will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and so the Dallas
Court of Appeals had no choice but to declare the injunction void); see also, AutoNation, Inc. v.
Hatfield, 186 S.W.3d 576, 581 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (merely stating that a
party "will suffer irreparable harm" or "has no adequate remedy at law" does not meet the Rule
683 requirement of specificity).

3
 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS,
GARRETT JENNINGS and
CASTLE CROWN PROPERTIES
MANAGEMENT, LLC

and

/s/ Peyton Smith
PEYTON N. SMITH
State Bar No. 18664350
Brian L. King
State Bar No. 24055776
REED & SCARDINO LLP
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1250
Austin, Texas 78701
Tel: 512/474-2449
Fax: 512/474-2622
psmith@reedscardino.com
bking@reedscardino.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT,
VICTORY CHEVAL HOLDINGS,
LLC

4
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By my signature above, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing Supplement to Appellants' Response to Appellees Dennis Antolik's and
Cheval Manor, Inc.'s Motion for Contempt and for Referral to Trial Court has been
forwarded to Appellees' attorneys on this 3rd day of September, 2015, as follows:

Cleveland R. Burke Via Email: cburke@taubesummers.com
Mark Taylor Via Email: MarkT@hts-law.com
Taube Summers Harrison
Taylor Meinzer Brown LLP
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1800
Austin, Texas 78701

Donald R. Taylor Via Email: dtaylor@taylordunham.com
Isabelle M. Antongiorgi Via Email: ima@taylordunham.com
Taylor, Dunham & Rodriguez, LLP
301 Congress Avenue, Suite 1050
Austin, Texas 78701

5