Arlington 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 Skierski’s Arlington business and commercial litigation team represents owners, executives, and stakeholders across Texas who need clear direction in urgent situations. Our clients are the people building and running their companies every day. They want practical advice, fast action when it matters, and a legal strategy that fits how their business actually operates.

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.

What a TRO Accomplishes in a Business Dispute

A Temporary Restraining Order is a short-term court order that prevents immediate commercial harm and preserves the status quo while the court can evaluate the dispute on a complete record. In practical terms, that may mean pausing the suspected theft of a customer list after a key employee leaves, stopping the use of confidential files that were taken without permission, or preventing a transfer of funds that would be difficult to reverse later. The goal is not to decide the entire case in a single hearing, but to prevent irreversible injury that monetary damages may not fix.

Because the remedy is extraordinary, judges expect narrow requests that match the specific risk. A tailored TRO that targets defined conduct, time periods, accounts, or data sets is easier for the court to grant and enforce, and it minimizes disruption to lawful business activity. Tight alignment between the relief requested and the harm threatened also strengthens credibility for the next stage of the case.

The Path from TRO to Longer-Term Injunctive Relief

A TRO is the opening step in a sequence that often includes a temporary injunction and, in some cases, a permanent injunction after a final judgment. After a TRO is issued, the court will set a hearing in which both sides present evidence on whether interim relief should continue during the lawsuit. The record built for the TRO application usually frames that hearing; clear, specific proof offered early tends to shape how the court views the situation as the case progresses.

Planning with this sequence in mind matters. Evidence gathered when a TRO is filed, including declarations from knowledgeable witnesses and authenticated documents, should be organized with the final hearing in mind.

What Texas Courts Require 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 rest on concrete facts rather than general suspicions. Loss of trade secret secrecy, erosion of goodwill with key accounts, dissipation of assets that cannot be traced, or loss of operational control are classic examples of harm that monetary damages alone may not repair.

Courts also require specificity in the temporary restraining order and security in the form of a bond. The order must describe the restrained conduct with clarity so that everyone understands what is permitted and what is prohibited. The bond protects the restrained party if the order is later determined to have been wrongfully issued. These requirements are not technicalities; they reflect the equitable nature of the remedy and the court’s duty to balance competing interests.

Evidence That Persuades in TRO Proceedings

Judges look for a clean, reliable story. Agreements with confidentiality, non-solicitation, non-compete, or IP ownership terms explain what the parties promised to protect. Emails, chats, and internal notices fill in who knew what and when. System artifacts such as access logs, download reports, and credential changes can pinpoint suspicious activity, while customer or employee outreach that mirrors protected lists shows how information is being used. The most convincing applications tie these pieces together with sworn declarations from people who saw the events unfold, explaining in plain language why ongoing conduct would cause harm that cannot be repaired later with a check. The result is a concise, credible record the court can act on promptly and defend at the later injunction hearing.

Drafting Orders the Court Can Enforce

An effective order solves the specific problem without sweeping more broadly than necessary. If the risk involves confidential customer information, the order should define what is protected and bar its use or disclosure while leaving room for lawful competition that does not depend on those materials. If asset movement is the concern, the order should identify the accounts or transaction types to be paused while allowing ordinary-course payments like payroll, taxes, and essential vendors. Where access is the issue, the order can require the return of devices and credentials, set short timelines, and include a simple verification process that confirms completion without halting operations. Precision makes implementation easier for banks, payroll providers, and IT vendors and reduces later disputes about what the order means.

The Mechanics of Filing a Temporary Restraining Order

Filing for a TRO blends careful drafting with practical steps. The lawsuit and application are filed together, supported by verified pleadings or sworn declarations that set out the facts, a brief memorandum connecting those facts to the standards for equitable relief, and a proposed order that mirrors the requested restraints. Courts can hear TROs quickly, and in truly urgent circumstances may consider a request without advance notice to the other side. Proceeding without notice must be justified by specific facts, such as a scheduled data dump or a transfer that would immediately put assets beyond reach. Even then, the court will set a prompt hearing so both sides can be heard. Applicants should be ready to post a bond, serve the order and supporting papers immediately, and start the compliance steps the order requires. When time permits, notice often helps narrow the issues and reduce friction.

Ensuring Compliance With And Enforcing a Temporary Restraining Order

A TRO protects value only if it is followed. After the order is entered, the restrained party should receive clear instructions, and both sides should implement straightforward steps that confirm compliance. Written certifications, credential revocations, the documented return of devices and data, and agreed procedures for segregating or returning information reduce misunderstandings and create a record the court can trust. When questions arise about what the order permits, timely requests for clarification help avoid missteps. If a violation occurs, courts can enforce their orders through contempt, sanctions, and corrective directives. Careful documentation of noncompliance matters. Logs, messages, and witness statements provide the proof a judge needs to act, and the court can modify terms as facts develop to keep the order properly tailored to the risk that justified it.

When a TRO Is Not the Right Tool

Emergency relief is not the answer in every dispute. If the harm is strictly monetary and can be compensated after trial, or if the risk is speculative rather than imminent, a court is unlikely to grant a TRO. An honest assessment at the outset protects credibility and frees resources for better options, such as expedited discovery, early mediation, or a motion aimed at prompt merits resolution. Choosing the remedy that fits the facts leads to faster and more dependable outcomes.

our Arlington 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.