Denton 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 represents Denton owners, executives, and closely held companies that need clear, practical direction when a problem becomes urgent. Our clients run their businesses day to day. They expect straightforward guidance, prompt motion practice where it helps, and a plan that keeps operations moving 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.

How a TRO keeps business operations stable during a dispute

A Temporary Restraining Order is a short-term court order that prevents immediate commercial harm and preserves the status quo while the court evaluates the dispute on a complete record. In practice, that may mean pausing suspected misuse of a customer list after a resignation, stopping the use of files 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 one hearing. The goal is to prevent irreversible injury that money may not fix.

Because TROs are exceptional, judges expect requests that match the specific risk. A tailored order that targets defined conduct, time periods, accounts, or data sets is easier to grant and easier to enforce. Tight alignment between the harm and the requested restraint also builds credibility for the next stage of the case.

What happens after a TRO: temporary and permanent injunctions

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.

The legal test for emergency relief in Texas courts

To obtain a TRO or a 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 accounts, dissipation of assets that cannot be traced, or loss of operational control are familiar examples of harm that money alone may not repair.

Courts also require two practical safeguards: specificity and a bond. The order must clearly describe what is restrained so everyone understands what is permitted and what is not. A bond protects the restrained party if the order is later determined to have been wrongfully issued. These requirements reflect the court’s duty to balance the interests on both sides.

Drafting an order that is precise and practical

A workable TRO solves the immediate problem without reaching further than necessary. If confidential customer information is at issue, the order should define what is protected and bar its use or disclosure while leaving room for lawful competition that does not rely on that information. If the concern is cash movement, the order should identify the accounts or transaction types to pause while allowing ordinary-course payments such as payroll, taxes, insurance, and essential vendors. Where access is the issue, the order can require the return of devices and credentials, set short deadlines, and include a simple verification process that confirms completion without stalling operations. Detail helps banks, payroll providers, and IT vendors implement the order and reduces later disputes about what it means.

The process and timing of fililng a TRO in Denton

Filing for a TRO involves both legal drafting and practical steps. The lawsuit and application are filed together, supported by verified pleadings or sworn declarations, a short memorandum connecting the facts to the standards for equitable relief, and a proposed order that tracks the requested restraints line by line. Courts can hear TROs quickly, and in truly urgent circumstances may consider a request without advance notice if specific facts justify that approach, 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. Be prepared to post a bond, serve the order and supporting papers promptly, and begin the compliance steps the order requires. When time allows, giving advanced notice can narrow issues and reduce friction.

Protecting trade secrets and confidential business information with a TRO

Trade secret disputes move quickly because secrecy is fragile. Courts commonly 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 migrated to new accounts. The aim is to contain risk promptly while the company continues to meet obligations to customers and employees.

Enforcing compliance with a TRO or injunctive relief

A TRO only works if it is followed and enforced. After entry, the restrained party should receive clear instructions, and both sides should implement straightforward 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 their orders through contempt, sanctions, and corrective directives. Careful documentation of noncompliance allows the court to act quickly and fairly.

When a different remedy is the better choice

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. An honest 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 Denton 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.