Judge Lauren Reeder Refuses to Explain the Reasons Why She Denied HCA’s Temporary Injunction Application


Request for Findings of Fact Denied

Originally Published:  Feb 6, 2023 | Republished:Feb 20, 2023

So this happened.

After timely filing for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to the “reasoning” why Judge Reeder denied HCA’s TI, and not receiving a response from the Court within the prescribed time, I filed a reminder on Feb. 2.

On Feb. 6, an Order was issued denying the motion request, which I’ve just noticed after receiving the mailed court card.

Ordinarily, one wouldn’t be chasing down a Judge askin’ why she denied the opposing side an injunction, especially after I won the day. Importantly, the victory also aids those protecting attempts to chill free speech and asserting First Amendment rights.

What made this particular case interesting is the lead up to the hearing and then the hearing itself, which was in-person and continued despite my objection(s). After the hearing ended, there was allegedly ex-parte conversations between the Judge and opposing counsel.

After the hearing, the following morning HCA Lawyers (opposing counsel) submitted a proposed Temporary Injunction which would have granted them outrageous restrictions on my rights. Ultimately the Judge would deny the injunction but it is questionable why she would ask them to submit the proposed order at the hearing when the injunction was so out-of-line.

The sanctions hearing scheduled for March 20, 2023 should help obtain some of the missing pieces to this puzzle as there’s going to be at least 5 witnesses attending.


Originally Published:  Feb. 2, 2023 | Republished: Feb. 20, 2023

Your attention is respectfully called to the fact that a timely REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW was filed in the above-entitled case on January 12, 2023.[1]

The filing date for the findings and conclusions was therefore due on or before February 1, 2023, which date has now passed pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.[2]

See; Plaintiff’s and Counter-Defendant’s First Motion for Continuance of  Sanctions Hearing, image no. 106223353, dated January 27, 2023, relying upon;

In re A.Z.F., No. 04-20-00553-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Apr. 6, 2022) (“Appellant timely filed both a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law and notice of past-due findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, the trial court did not file findings and conclusions, and its failure to do so is presumed harmful unless the record affirmatively shows appellant suffered no harm.”)

Whilst on first blush, the decision here favored Plaintiff, it is the reasoning which is critical, considering the Plaintiff’s upcoming Sanctions hearing on March 20, 2023, before this court.

See; In re A.Z.F., No. 04-20-00553-CV, at *1 (Tex. App. Apr. 6, 2022) (“The record affirmatively demonstrates that appellant was not required to guess the reason for the trial court’s ruling.”).

The deadline for filing the findings and requests is now extended by the NOTICE to February 21, 2023. You are respectfully requested to file Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by that date.

RESPECTFULLY submitted this 2nd day of February, 2023.

[1] See, in part: “Plaintiff now formally and timely requests compliance with this request for findings of fact and conclusions of law for the order signed by Judge Lauren Reeder on January 10, 2023, image no. 105941882, denying defendant’s application for a temporary injunction.”. – Jan 12, 2023, image no. 105963896.

[2] See: “Although Lamas points out that the trial court did not enter findings of fact or conclusions of law in response to his request, he does not argue that the trial court erred by doing so.” Lamas v. Gonzalez, No. 08-21-00095-CV, at *6 n.3 (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2022)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like