Fort Worth lawyers for temporary restraining orders and injunctive relief

Business litigation involves resolving legal disputes between businesses, or between businesses and individuals, through court proceedings, encompassing a wide range of issues like contract breaches, intellectual property disputes, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

Roquemore Skiersi represents Fort Worth owners, executives, and closely held companies that need clear, practical direction when a situation becomes urgent. Our clients are hands-on operators who expect straightforward guidance, prompt filings when needed, and a plan that keeps the business running while the dispute is addressed.

When we take on a case, we bring clarity and direction. Whether you are defending your business or going on the offensive to protect what is yours, we build legal strategies that make sense in the real world. We know what is on the line; your time, your money, your reputation, and the future of your business, and we fight to protect it.

A TRO helps your company maintain stability while a dispute is evaluated

A TRO is frequently the first step in a sequence that can include a temporary injunction during the lawsuit and, where the law supports lasting relief, a permanent injunction at final judgment. After a TRO issues, the court sets a hearing where both sides present evidence on whether protections should remain while the case proceeds. The record made for the TRO typically frames that hearing. Clear, specific proof offered early often shapes how the court views the dispute as it develops.

Planning with this sequence in mind matters. Declarations, documents, and timelines assembled at the TRO stage should be organized so they carry forward to the later hearing without rework.

A TRO is often followed by a temporary injunction or a permanent injunction

A TRO is frequently the first step in a sequence that can include a temporary injunction and, in the right circumstances, a permanent injunction at final judgment. After a TRO issues, the court will schedule a hearing where both sides present evidence on whether protections should remain while the lawsuit proceeds. The record made for the TRO usually frames that hearing. Clear, specific proof offered early tends to shape how the court views the situation as the case develops.

Thinking ahead matters. The declarations, documents, and timelines assembled for the TRO should be organized so they carry forward to an injunction hearing, where the court will take a more extensive look at the evidence.

Texas courts apply a defined test before granting emergency relief

To obtain a TRO or temporary injunction, the applicant must show a probable right to relief on the merits, a probable and imminent irreparable injury, and that there is no adequate remedy at law. The showing must be grounded in facts, not general suspicions. Loss of trade secret secrecy, damage to goodwill with key customers, dissipation of assets that cannot be traced, lockouts that remove operational control, and the diversion of company funds for personal use are examples of harm that money alone may not repair.

Two practical safeguards also apply. The order must describe the restrained conduct with clarity, and the applicant should be prepared to post a bond. Specificity tells everyone what is permitted and what is not, and the bond protects the restrained party if the order is later determined to have been wrongfully issued.

Drafting an order that convinces a judge

Courts look for a straight, documented story. Agreements with confidentiality, non-solicitation, non-compete, or intellectual property provisions set the baseline for what the parties agreed to protect. Bank statements, payroll records, and general ledger entries can show unauthorized withdrawals or personal charges. Admin logs, permission changes, and credential histories reveal when someone altered access to key systems. Emails, messages, and internal notices supply the timeline, while outreach to customers or employees that mirrors protected lists shows how information is being used. Sworn statements from people with firsthand knowledge connect these points and explain why the conduct would cause harm that a later damages award cannot fix. Clarity and credibility matter more than volume.

Orders must be written to be easily enforced

A practical order is precise and limited to the risk at hand. If confidential customer information is at issue, the order should define the protected categories and bar use or disclosure while allowing fair competition that does not rely on that information. If the concern is cash movement, the order can identify the accounts or transaction types to pause, prohibit personal spending from company funds, and require short interval balance and transfer reports while allowing ordinary payments for payroll, taxes, insurance, and essential vendors. If control is the problem, the order can restore shared access to banking, email, and line-of-business software, prohibit unilateral credential changes, require the return of devices, and set simple verification steps that confirm compliance without stalling operations. Detail helps banks, payroll providers, and IT vendors implement the order and reduces later disputes about what it means.

Filing a TRO in Fort Worth requires both legal preparation and practical planning

A TRO application is filed with the lawsuit and supported by verified pleadings or sworn declarations, a concise memorandum that ties the facts to the legal standards, and a proposed order that tracks the requested restraints line by line. Courts can hear TROs quickly, and in truly urgent situations may consider a request without advance notice if the facts show that delay would cause the harm the order is intended to prevent. Examples include a scheduled data export, an imminent wire transfer, or a lockout that is crippling operations. Even then, the court will set a prompt hearing so both sides can be heard. Be ready to post a bond, serve the order and supporting papers immediately, and begin the compliance steps the order requires. When time allows, giving notice can narrow issues and reduce friction.

Protecting trade secrets and confidential business information requires targeted relief

Trade secret matters move quickly because secrecy is fragile. Courts often order parties to stop using or disclosing identified categories of information, return company materials, and suspend access to systems that store sensitive data. Relief that works day to day includes disabling credentials, confirming deletion of protected files from personal devices, and using a neutral technologist to confirm that information has not been copied to new accounts. The aim is to contain risk promptly while the company continues to meet obligations to customers and employees.

A TRO only works if it is followed and enforced

After entry, the restrained party should receive clear instructions, and both sides should implement steps that confirm compliance. Written certifications, credential revocations, documented returns of devices and data, and agreed procedures for segregating or returning information reduce misunderstandings and create a record the court can trust. If questions arise, timely requests for clarification help avoid missteps. When a violation occurs, courts can enforce orders through contempt, sanctions, and corrective directives. Careful documentation of noncompliance allows the court to act quickly and fairly.

Sometimes a different remedy is the better path

Emergency relief is not appropriate in every disagreement. If the harm is purely monetary and can be compensated after trial, or if the risk is speculative rather than imminent, a court is unlikely to grant a TRO. A candid assessment at the outset protects credibility and directs resources to better options, such as expedited discovery, early mediation, or a motion aimed at prompt merits resolution.

our Fort Worth injunctive relief and TRO lawyers

Kelvin Roquemore

Founding Partner

Kelvin Roquemore is a Founding Partner of Roquemore Skierski, specializing in business and commercial litigation, with experience in business transactions, complex litigation, M&A, and commercial real estate. With over 25 years of in-house counsel and business litigation experience, he brings a strategic approach to supporting owner-operated small and medium-sized enterprises.

Doug Skierski

Founding Partner

Doug Skierski is a Founding Partner of Roquemore Skierski, and is an A/V-rated attorney with over 20 years of experience in bankruptcy, creditors’ rights, receiverships, and commercial litigation. He holds a J.D. from Southern Methodist University School of Law and has a strong background in complex commercial litigation and arbitration.

D. Shawn Stevens

Of Counsel

Dennis Shawn Stevens is a member of Roquemore Skierski with over 20 years of experience representing clients in business litigation, commercial disputes, and insurance-related claims. He holds a J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center and advises businesses on matters involving breach of contract, construction conflicts, and complex commercial torts.

Mark Ivanyo

Of Counsel

Mark Ivanyo has experience in complex commercial litigation, including contract disputes, product liability, and premises-related claims. He has experience representing businesses in state and federal courts, as well as in arbitration and administration. Mark holds a J.D. from South Texas College of Law and holds a B.B.A. in Management from Texas State University.

Alyssa Grissom

Paralegal

Alysa S. Grissom is a paralegal at Roquemore Skierski and is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization—an achievement held by fewer than 400 paralegals statewide. She holds an A.A. in Government, an A.A.S. in Paralegal Studies from Austin Community College, and a B.A. in Business, magna cum laude, from Concordia University Texas.

Frequently asked questions

FAQ's

What is fraud litigation?

Fraud litigation involves a civil lawsuit where a business owner alleges that another party intentionally misrepresented or concealed a material fact, causing financial harm when the owner relied on that falsehood.

How does statutory fraud in real-estate or stock transactions differ from common-law fraud?

Statutory fraud claims arise under Texas Business & Commerce Code § 27.01 and apply to real-estate or stock sales; the statute eases proof of scienter and allows exemplary damages without proving intent to deceive.

What is the statute of limitations for fraud in Texas?

Texas fraud claims carry a four-year limitations period under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004, but the discovery rule extends the statute of limitations until the fraud could reasonably have been discovered.

What defenses are commonly raised against fraud allegations?

Defendants typically argue lack of misrepresentation, no intent to deceive, absence of reliance, statute of limitations, waiver, or that statements were non-actionable opinions or forward-looking projections that could not be constituted as absolute statements.

How is fraud different from negligent misrepresentation?

Fraud involves intentional deception or a reckless disregard for the truth. By contrast, negligent misrepresentation, as outlined in Section 552 of the Restatement of Torts, arises when someone makes a false statement without exercising reasonable care in verifying its accuracy.

Can a company sue its own officers or employees for fraud?

A Texas corporation may file direct or derivative actions against officers, directors, or employees who commit fraud or breach fiduciary duties, seeking damages or disgorgement.

Are punitive damages available in Texas fraud cases?

Punitive (exemplary) damages are available if clear and convincing evidence shows fraud, malice, or gross negligence; Chapter 41 caps generally limit the award to the greater of $200,000 or two times economic damages plus non-economic damages up to $750,000.

When should I hire a fraud-litigation attorney?

A business owner should engage counsel as soon as suspicious conduct is detected—early legal action preserves electronic evidence, meets limitations deadlines, and increases leverage for settlement or injunctions.