Responding to a Texas TRO

By Catherine A. Keith · Last updated July 24, 2026

A temporary restraining order is the most disruptive opening move in Texas business litigation. The papers order you to stop, immediately, doing specific things, working at your new employer, contacting certain customers, moving certain assets, running the business a certain way. The order binds you the moment it is served. A hearing on whether to convert the restraint into a temporary injunction is typically set within 14 days.

That makes the first 48 hours the most important hours in the case. They shape what is possible at the temporary injunction hearing, and that hearing usually shapes everything after it. What follows is how to use those hours, how to defend at the hearing, and how to set up the fight that comes after.

The first 48 hours

Comply with the order while challenging it. This is non-negotiable. Violation of a TRO produces contempt exposure independent of whether the underlying order is later determined to be wrongful. Compliance preserves the ability to challenge the order; non-compliance creates collateral problems that often dominate the case.

Engage litigation counsel immediately. TRO response work requires immediate attention. The temporary injunction hearing is within 14 days, and effective preparation takes nearly all of that time.

Preserve evidence. Documents, communications, business records, everything related to the underlying dispute and to the impact of the TRO on the business.

Document business impact. What the order is causing, lost revenue, customer disruption, employee impact, financial harm. This documentation is essential for both opposing the temporary injunction and preserving wrongful injunction recovery if applicable.

Identify procedural defects. Did the order satisfy Rule 683? Was bond posted under Rule 684? Was notice given when required? Defects can support either dissolve motions or arguments at the temporary injunction hearing.

Stop all communications with the opposing party about the dispute. Communications go through counsel.

Engage forensic resources if applicable. Cases involving allegations of trade secret theft, data misappropriation, or electronic conduct often require immediate forensic analysis to support defense.

Procedural challenges

Several procedural challenges may apply:

Rule 683 specificity. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683 requires injunctions to be specific in terms, describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained, and not incorporate other documents by reference. Vague or overbroad orders fail Rule 683 and can be challenged or dissolved.

Rule 684 bond. Texas Rule 684 requires applicants to post bond protecting the restrained party from wrongful injunction damages. Bond amounts that are inadequate relative to the harm being inflicted can be challenged. Applicants who failed to post bond at all face vacatur of the order.

Notice requirements. Texas Rule 680 allows ex parte TROs only when specific requirements are met. TROs issued ex parte without satisfaction of the requirements can be challenged.

Subject matter jurisdiction and venue. When the court lacks proper jurisdiction or venue, the TRO is vulnerable. See Venue Selection in Texas.

Service propriety. The applicant must properly serve the TRO. Defects in service can be raised.

Procedural challenges produce two strategic paths: separate motion to dissolve (heard quickly) or merger of the procedural arguments into the temporary injunction hearing opposition. The choice depends on case profile and timing.

Defending the temporary injunction

The temporary injunction hearing is the principal battle. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing:

1. A probable right to recovery on the underlying claim.
2. A probable injury without the injunction.
3. Imminent and irreparable harm.
4. No adequate remedy at law.

Defense attacks any one element. Effective defense often addresses multiple elements.

Attack probable right. Show that the underlying claim is weaker than presented in the TRO papers:

• Element-based challenges to the underlying claim. See the substantive defense pages, non-compete defense, fraud defense, contract defense.
• Documentary support contradicting the plaintiff’s allegations. Cases that look strong on paper often weaken when the full record is presented.
• Witness testimony contradicting the plaintiff’s narrative. Cases that depend on uncontested affidavits weaken when the defendant can present contrary testimony.

Attack probable injury. Show that the harm alleged is overstated:

• The harm has already occurred and cannot be enjoined. Equitable relief is generally not available to remedy past harm.
• The harm is speculative rather than imminent.
• The harm is not material to the plaintiff’s business.

Attack irreparable harm. Show that damages are adequate:

• Damages can be calculated and recovered. When damages are reasonably ascertainable, the harm is not irreparable and equitable relief is improper.
• The plaintiff has insurance or other recovery sources for the alleged harm.
• The harm is purely financial and quantifiable.

Attack adequate remedy. This element overlaps with irreparable harm but is distinct:

• Specific legal remedies are available. When the law provides specific remedies, damages, statutory recovery, injunctive relief after trial, equitable relief is not needed pre-trial.

Balance of equities and public interest. Texas courts also consider the balance of harms between the parties and the public interest. Showing that the harm to the restrained party is substantial, and disproportionate to the harm to the applicant if no relief is granted, supports denial.

The bond strategy

Rule 684 bond strategy serves multiple purposes:

Adequate bond is required for an enforceable order. When no bond is posted, the order is vacatable.

Substantial bond requirements protect the restrained party. When the potential wrongful injunction damages are large, the bond should reflect that. Pushing for substantial bond:

• Sometimes deters the plaintiff from continuing to seek the relief.
• Provides recovery source if the order is later determined to be wrongful.
• Reflects the seriousness of the relief being sought.

Bond challenges. Inadequate bond can be challenged through motions to increase or to vacate. Courts have discretion on bond amounts, but the standard contemplates protection of the restrained party’s likely damages.

Documenting the potential damages from wrongful injunction in detail and with supporting evidence, is essential to effective bond strategy.

Wrongful injunction recovery

When the temporary injunction is denied, the TRO is vacated, or the underlying case is ultimately resolved in favor of the restrained party, wrongful injunction recovery may be available:

Recovery from the bond. The bond provides the principal recovery source. Recovery is generally limited to the bond amount.

Recovery beyond the bond. In specific circumstances, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, recovery beyond the bond may be available, but these theories require their own elements (malice, lack of probable cause, improper purpose) that are harder to establish.

Damages recoverable. Lost profits, business disruption costs, employee costs, attorney’s fees related to the injunction (when properly preserved), and other proximately caused harm.

Recovery work begins with documentation throughout the case. Cases that did not document the injunction’s harm contemporaneously face uphill battles in establishing damages later.

Strategic considerations

The temporary injunction hearing is often dispositive. Cases where the temporary injunction is denied frequently settle quickly, while cases where the temporary injunction is granted often see the restrained party operate under the restraint for the duration of the case.

The pretrial relief shapes the final outcome. The plaintiff who obtains broad temporary relief often maintains advantage through the rest of the case; defendants who defeat temporary relief often gain leverage that carries through to settlement.

Interlocutory appeal is available. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4) allows immediate interlocutory appeal of orders granting or denying temporary injunctions. Cases with strong appellate arguments may benefit from appellate review of the temporary injunction order. See Business Litigation Appeals.

Coordination with substantive defense. The temporary injunction defense should set up the broader case defense. Positions taken at the temporary injunction hearing affect the case going forward.

Counterclaim opportunities. Many cases that begin as TRO defense develop into substantial counterclaim cases as the underlying dispute is fully explored.

Winning the 14-day window

We respond the day we are called. TRO work is the most time-sensitive work in Texas business litigation. We build multi-element defenses for the temporary injunction hearing, since a case that survives that hearing is usually positioned well for the rest of the litigation. We work the procedural mechanics, Rule 683, Rule 684, the notice requirements, alongside the substantive defense, because those challenges often generate real leverage. We document the order’s impact on the business from day one, because both the defense and any later wrongful injunction recovery live or die on that record. And we take the temporary injunction order up on interlocutory appeal when review is likely to change the result.

The clock is the adversary here as much as the other side is. The defendant who gets counsel working inside the first day, rather than the second or third, is the one with a real chance at the hearing.