ill

NO. 2016-Cl-22022
JAVIER SALAZAR, SHERIFF ELECT,
Plaintiff,

V.
SUSAN L. PAMERLEAU, SHERIFF
BEXAR COUNTY
Defendant.

-Mill

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

150TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS

MOTION TO DISOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

'4

NOW COMES Susan L. Pamerleau, Defendant in the above styled cause, and
moves to dissolve Plaintiff's Temporary Restraining Order, signed on or about 2:13 p.m.,
December 28, 2016, and in support thereof respectfully shows the Court as follows:
I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Javier Salazar filed a lawsuit against Sheriff Susan L. Pamerleau alleging the tort
of interference with employment matters. Javier Salazar requests up to $100,000.00 for
damages. Javier Salazar is a private citizen awaiting investiture as Bexar County Sheriff
on January 1, 2017. Sheriff Pamela is an elected public official until January 1, 2017.
On December 28, 2016, Javier Salazar filed an Application for Temporary
Restraining Order. The file stamp shows that roughly twenty minutes after the application
was filed, the Court entered an ex pane order granting Plaintiffs request. Defendant had
no actual or constructive knowledge of the request at the time the
Temporary Restraining Order (hereinafter "TRO"). At all times, Javier
to contact Defendant, and he knew she was represented by the Be

granted. the
a
C
CrS
kneow
?Y-cTb
k2
snf Drict1Zrr, to
at2 7n0 r

Attorney.
n
C

DOCUMENT SCANNED AS FILED

-C

Sheriff Pamerleau files the present motion to dissolve Plaintiff's TRO for the
following reasons:
The TRO does not identify an expiration date as required by Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 680;
There is no recognized underlying cause of action upon which Plaintiff can prevail;
There is no injury, except for tenuous speculation which movant contends is still
not a legally recognized injury;
The injury is not properly defined
There is no irreparable harm, and the TRO does not articulate any basis to assert
irreparable harm;
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue any cause of action related to the employment
matters alluded to in his petition;
Plaintiff's allegations as articulated in his petition are legally insufficient to uphold
the TRO, and the accompanying affidavit in support offer no additional factual
support;
Sheriff Pamerleau is immune from suit as she is a public official acting in her
public capacity.
H. LEGAL STANDARD
A plaintiff must prove three specific elements to obtain a temporary injunction: (1)
a cause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable right to the relief sought; and (3)
a probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84
S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). Rules 680 through 684 outline the technical requirements
for a party seeking a TRO. TEx. R. Civ. P. 680-684. For a TRO to be valid, the Order
must, inter a/ia, state the date the order expires and set a hearing on a temporary
injunction. See In re Office of Atty. Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Tex, 2008).
A party seeking a TRO must plead all necessary facts to support the issues of
injunctive relief; legal conclusions are not sufficient. Texas State Bd. Of Medical Exam'rs
v. Mckinney, 315 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tex. App.Waco 1958, no writ).

Motion to Dissolve TRO

Page 2 of 6

DOCUMENT SCANNED AS FILED

III.

ANALYSIS

The TRO is void on its face because it fails to state a date that the order expires.
TEX. R. Clv. P. 680. The TRO here merely schedules a hearing ordering the parties to

attend regarding the conversion of the TRO into a temporary injunction, a separate but
distinct requirement under the rule. These are two distinct rules, and the language in the
TRO does not satisfy both requirements. Accordingly, Plaintiff's TRO is void on its face
and should be dissolved.
Plaintiff has failed to allege an underlying cause of action in his application; a
necessary element to entitle Plaintiff for injunctive relief. Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84
S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). Plaintiff's petition states he will suffer harm, but it only says
as such in a conclusory manner. Plaintiff offers nothing more than legal conclusions by
stating that he will suffer harm and has no adequate remedy at law. These legal
conclusions are insufficient to entitle Plaintiff to a TRO. Texas State Bd. Of Medical

Exam'rs v. McKinney, 315 S.W.2d 387, 390 (Tex. App.Waco 1958, no writ).
To further demonstrate Plaintiff's lack of an underlying cause of action, his civil
information sheet filed alongside his petition merely alleges "tortious interference." Under
the Elements section of Plaintiff's petition, he offers only legal conclusions attempting to
satisfy the legal requirements showing he is entitled to a TRO. He offers neither legal nor
factual support to articulate an underlying cause of action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs TRO
should be dissolved as he has not and cannot satisfy the essential elements to entitle him
to injunctive relief.
Plaintiff's allegations are nothing more than tenuous speculation and do not
articulate an injury. The petition states "Sgt. Teresa Christensen was given a 30 day

Motion to Dissolve TRO

Page 3 of 6

DOCUMENT SCANNED AS FILED

suspension for unwarranted and meritless allegations." P1's Pet. 17. While Plaintiffs
standing to bring such a claim is dubious at best, it does not articulate an injury to Plaintiff.
The same is true for Chiefs Burr and Reyes, discussed in the same portion of Plaintiff's
petition. All three of these persons have administrative remedies, thus, Plaintiffs
conclusory allegations do not amount to anything more than tenuous speculation and an
unarticulated injury.
Plaintiff has not articulated why he will be irreparably harmed. The petition and
subsequent TRO are silent regarding any details as to how Plaintiff will be irreparably
harmed if Defendant is not enjoined. Plaintiff admits in his position that Defendant will no
longer be Sheriff of Bexar County on January 1, and he will assume the role. The only
vague articulation of any harm Plaintiff might suffer is his allegation that Defendant's
actions will cause "Plaintiff to ineffectively manage the Bexar County Sheriff's office and
will cause Plaintiff irreparable injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law." P1's
Pet. 18. This is insufficient and does not meet the requirements of Rule 680 requiring
specifics facts in support.
Plaintiffs petition points to three employment decisions within the Bexar County
Sheriff's Office. Plaintiff is not one of the employees and has not brought the current
lawsuit on their behalf. Accordingly, Plaintiff lacks standing to complain about their alleged
injuries. While Plaintiff's recitation of the employment decisions are vague and
mischaracterizations of the actual events, Sheriff Pamerleau's employment decisions
were made while she was in the course and scope of her job as Bexar County Sheriff.
Thus: Plaintiffs petition has not plead sufficient information to demonstrate why Sheriff

Motion to Dissolve TRO

Page 4 of 6

DOCUMENT SCANNED AS FILED

Pamerleau and her employment decisions are not immune from this suit, even if Plaintiff
is the proper party to seek redress.
Finally, the TRO is fundamentally flawed on the grounds that it directly and
adversely affects the public's interest. Sheriff Pamerleau has numerous responsibilities
in her role as Sheriff, and this TRO does nothing more than impede her ability to execute
her duties.
IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff, if he has standing to bring the present lawsuit and Defendant is not
immune from it, has not met the statutory or common law requirements to entitle himself
to injunctive relief. Plaintiff has offered no more than conclusory statements that do not
even articulate an underlying cause of action. The petition is void of substance, which is
aggravated by Plaintiffs affidavit in support, which merely states that "[he was] fully aware
of all the incident cited within this application and to the best of [his] ability, they are true
and correct. .(sic)" The petition and affidavit in support are inadequate to demonstrate
Plaintiffs entitlement to injunctive relief. Defendants respectfully request that this Court
dissolve the ex parte Temporary Restraining Order.

{SIGNATURES OF FOLLOWING PAGE.}

Motion to Dissolve TRO

Page 5 of 6

DOCUMENT SCANNED AS FILED

Respectfully submitted,
SHELTON &VALADEZ, P.C.
600 Navarro, Suite 500
San Antonio, TX. 78205
Phone: (210) 349-0515
Fax: (210) 349-3666

By.
WADE B. SHELTON
State Bar No.: 18211800
wshelton@shelton-valadez.com
DEBORAH S. JACKSON
State Bar No.: 24078723
diacksonshelton-valadez.com
ALEXANDER GOOD
State Bar. No.: 24092433
agoodsheIton-vaIadez.com
ATTORNEYS FOR MOVANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been forwarded in
accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 21it day of December,
2016, to the following persons in the manner indicated below:
Via Facsimile and Electronic Mail:
Ruben Alcantara
400 N. Loop 1604 E, Suite 110
San Antonio, Texas 78232
Phone: (210) 224-2200
Fax:
(210) 224-2204
ralcantara@delarivalaw.com

#422287

Motion to Dissolve TRO

Page 6 of 6

DOCUMENT SCANNED AS FILED