McKinney lawyers for temporary restraining orders and injunctive relief

Business disputes can upend a company long before a case reaches trial. Contract issues, conflicts between co-owners, misuse of confidential information, and sudden loss of access to bank or software accounts can unsettle customers and cash flow in a matter of days. Misuse of corporate funds for personal expenses or withdrawals without authorization only adds to the risk.

Roquemore Skiersi represents McKinney business owners, executives, and closely held companies that need clear direction when a problem becomes urgent. Our clients are hands-on. They want practical guidance, timely filings when necessary, and a plan that protects the business 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 stabilizes operations during a dispute

A Temporary Restraining Order is a short-term court order that prevents imminent commercial harm and preserves the status quo while the court evaluates the dispute on a complete record. In practice, that can mean pausing the use of a confidential customer list after a resignation, reversing a lockout from banking or cloud systems, stopping the use of files copied without permission, or blocking transfers that would be difficult to unwind later. The objective is not to decide the entire case in one appearance. The objective is to prevent damage that money may not fix and to create space for a fair hearing where both sides can be heard.

Because this is exceptional relief, judges expect a tight match between the risk and the requested remedy. A filing that identifies the specific conduct, accounts, systems, and data sets at issue is easier to grant and easier to enforce. Narrow tailoring also keeps lawful operations moving for employees, vendors, and customers while the case proceeds.

How courts extend relief from a TRO to longer-term orders

A TRO is often the first of many steps to resolving a business dispute. The court will set a hearing to determine whether a temporary injunction should remain in place while the lawsuit continues. In some matters, a permanent injunction may be entered at final judgment if the law supports lasting relief. The record prepared for the TRO usually becomes the backbone of the next hearing, which is why early organization and accuracy matter.

The legal standard for emergency relief in Texas

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. These standards are satisfied with facts, not adjectives. Loss of trade secret secrecy, harm to goodwill with key customers, lockouts that remove operational control, dissipation of assets that cannot be traced, and diversion of company funds for personal expenses are examples of harm that money alone may not repair.

Two practical safeguards also apply. The order must describe the restrained conduct with clarity so everyone understands what is allowed and what is not, and the applicant should be prepared to post a bond to protect the restrained party if the order is later found to be wrongfully issued.

Evidence that persuades at a TRO hearing

Courts respond to a straightforward chronology supported by reliable records and testimony. 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 document unauthorized withdrawals or personal charges to company accounts. Admin logs, permission changes, and credential histories show when someone altered access to banking, email, or line-of-business software. 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 immediate relief is needed.

Drafting an order that is precise and workable

A practical order solves the specific problem without reaching further than necessary. 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 cash movement is the concern, the order can freeze named accounts or defined transaction types, prohibit personal spending from company funds, and require short-interval reporting of balances and transfers, while permitting ordinary-course payments such as payroll, taxes, insurance, and essential vendors. If control is the problem, the order can restore shared access to banking, email, and software platforms, bar unilateral credential changes, require the return of devices, and outline simple verification steps that confirm compliance without stalling operations. Clear terms help banks, payroll providers, and IT vendors implement the order and reduce later disputes about what it means.

The process and timing of filing a TRO in McKinney

A TRO application is filed with the lawsuit and supported by verified pleadings or sworn declarations, a concise memorandum tying the facts to the legal standards, and a proposed order that mirrors the requested restraints line by line. Courts can hear TROs quickly and, if the facts show that delay would cause the very harm the order is intended to prevent, may consider the request without advance notice. Examples include an imminent wire transfer, a scheduled data export, a sudden lockout that stops operations, or evidence of personal spending from company accounts. 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 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 with a TRO

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. This approach contains risk while the company continues to meet obligations to customers and employees.

Enforcing a TRO is just as important as filing one correctly

A TRO only works if it is followed and enforced. After entry, the restrained party should receive clear instructions, and both sides should take simple steps to 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 rely on. If questions arise, a timely request for clarification prevents avoidable 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 in your favor.

our McKinney 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.