Internet America, Inc. v. Massey,
no. 96-10955C (Tex. Dallas County Dist. Ct. Oct. 14, 1996)

Temporary Restraining Order

From: ceo@airmail.net (Robert Maynard)
Newsgroups: dfw.internet.providers,dfw.flame
Subject: Mackdaddy, Please read
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 1996 20:33:07 GMT
Organization: Internet America
Message-ID: <3262a359.347910133@news.airmail.net>

Kevin Massey aka, Philip Massey, aka Kevin Parrish, aka Mackdaddy, aka macdade@computek.net:

Please take a moment to review the following text. There you will find a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting you from, among other things, attacking Internet America, me, my wife, and our employees over the Internet.

It also restricts you to at least 500 yards from our place of business and our home.

It also orders you or your lawyer to appear before the court at 10:00 am Monday October 28th. See the text of the order for exact details.

There are other important components, but I just wanted to hit the high points in understandable English, so there wouldn't be any doubt about it's meaning.

The formatting is a little screwy here, but you'll get the general gist. The sherriff will be arriving shortly with a hard copy for you.

Have a nice day.

Robert Maynard
CEO, Internet America

-- Order follows

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
68th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

INTERNET AMERICA, INC., ROBERT MAYNARD and TERESA MAYNARD,
Plaintiffs,

v.

KEVIN MASSEY a/k/a KEVIN PARRISH a/k/a PHILLIP MASSEY,
Defendant.

CAUSE NO. 96-10955C

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

On this day the Court considered Plaintiffs' Original Petition and Verified Application for Injunction, Including Temporary Restraining Order. The Court has read the verified pleadings and considered the argument of counsel and applicable law. Based upon the information contained in the papers on file, it appears to the Court that Kevin Massey a/k/a Kevin Parrish a/k/a Phillip Massey (the "Defendant") has undertaken the following beginning on or about September 29, 1996 and continuing through the present, Massey has undertaken the following conduct through use of the internet and specifically DFW.Internet.Providers and other local discussion groups and continues to otherwise eminently threaten the continuation of such conduct by these and other means:

A. the transmission of untrue factual accusations of heinous criminal conduct at IA with the specific intent to interfere with its customers and potential customer relationships;

B. the transmission of untrue factual allegations of customer relations at IA with the specific intent to interfere with its customer and potential customer relationships;

C. the transmission of untrue factual allegations of vulgar, profane, obscene and indecent conduct on the part of the Maynards of a confidential and personal nature intending to cause disrepute and emotional damage and further to damage and destroy customer and potential customer relationships;

D. the intentional disclosure of embarrassing private information with the intent to cause emotional distress;

E. Outrageous conduct with the intent to cause emotional distress;

F. the transmission of threats of eminent bodily harm to the Maynards and the employees of IA.

It further appears to the Court that Massey's conduct has caused damage to the Maynards and IA and such continued conduct will in all reasonable probability cause irreparable injury for which the Maynards and IA have no adequate remedy at law including the following:

A. The permanent loss of customers and standing in the marketplace;

B. Loss of business reputation and goodwill;

C. Loss of personal and professional reputation; and

D. Emotional distress.

Given the above and foregoing, it appears to the Court that defendant has threatened to, without justification, continue the transmission of untrue factual accusations in the DFW.Internet.Providers discussion group and other local discussion groups of heinous criminal conduct at IA with the intent to interfere with IA's customers and potential customer relationships. There is an immediate and real threat of irreparable harm in that if Massey is allowed to continue to tortiously interfere with these relationships, IA will lose (1) its right to service certain customers or thereby face the loss of those customers or prospective customers, (2) its prohibitive capital investment in those customers, and (3) the customer goodwill in servicing those customers, which in many instances has taken over a year to develop. The damages caused thereby are difficult, if not impossible, to calculate. Because of IA's imminent business disruption, damages will be irreparable. Because of such incalculable damages, IA has no adequate remedy at law should the Defendant's tortious interference not be immediately restrained and enjoined.

Additionally, it appears to the Court that defendant has threatened to, without justification, continue the transmission of untrue factual allegations in the DFW.Internet.Providers discussion group and other local discussion groups of vulgar, profane, obscene and indecent conduct on the part of the Maynards of a confidential and personal nature intending to cause disrepute and damage to both the Maynards and IA. Such conduct will in all likelihood lead to the continued irreparable damage set forth above to IA and further will threaten the emotional condition of the Maynards. The Maynards have no adequate remedy at law for such damages.

Additionally, it appears to the Court that Defendant has threatened to continue, without justification, threats of and to cause bodily harm to the Maynards and employees of IA. Because of potential physical and emotional injury, damages would be irreparable for which the Maynards and IA have no adequate remedy at law should such threats and potential harmful conduct not be immediately restrained and enjoined.

It appears to the Court that because of such incalculable damages, IA has no adequate remedy at law should an injunction not issue. Furthermore, it appears to the Court that this injunction should issue ex parte because the Defendant is exhibiting a willful intent to continue the wrongful conduct and because the giving of notice will provide the Defendant an opportunity to complete his wrongful course of conduct and irreparably damage IA. Therefore, it appears to the Court that this matter is in the nature of an emergency and that there is inadequate time to provide notice. It is therefore,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Defendant, his agents, servants, attorneys, employees and anyone acting or purporting to act on his behalf, be and they are hereby commanded to desist and refrain from:

1. transmitting via the internet and specifically the DFW.Internet.Providers discussion group and other local discussion groups untrue factual allegations of heinous criminal conduct at IA;

2. transmitting via the internet and specifically the DFW.Internet.Providers discussion group and other local discussion groups untrue factual accusations of customer relations at IA;

3. transmitting, via Internet and specifically the DFW.Internet.Providers discussion group and other local discussion groups untrue factual allegations of vulgar, profane, obscene and indecent conduct on the part of the Maynards of a confidential and personal nature;

4. transmitting via the Internet and specifically the DFW.Internet.Providers discussion group and other local discussion groups embarrassing private information concerning the Maynards;

5. outrageous conduct directed at the Maynards with the intent to cause emotional distress;

6. transmitting via the Internet and specifically the DFW.Internet.Providers discussion group and other local discussion groups threats of imminent bodily harm to the Maynards or any employee of IA;

7. coming within 500 yards of the Maynards' private residence and the offices of IA;

8. intentionally communicating to the Maynards in vulgar, profane, obscene or indecent language, or in a coarse or offensive manner with the intent to annoy or alarm the Maynards;

9. threatening to take unlawful action including imminent bodily harm against the Maynards or IA's employees; and

10. intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing bodily injury to the Maynards or employees of IA.

Such order being necessary to preserve and protect the rights of Plaintiffs and maintain the status quo. It is further,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a clerk of the court shall forthwith on the filing by IA of the bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof hereinafter required, and on approving the same according to law issue a temporary restraining order in conformity with the law and with the terms of this order. It is further,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this Temporary Restraining Order shall become effective upon the filing with the clerk of a bond, in conformity with the law, or filing a cash deposit in lieu of bond, which the clerk is ordered to accept by IA in the amount of $500.00 dollars. It is further,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that a duly authorized agent of Defendant appear in this Court, Room 354, on the 28th day of October, 1996 at 10:00 o'clock (a.m./-p.m.) and then and there to show cause why a temporary injunction should not be issued as required by Plaintiffs. It is further,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this Temporary Restraining Order shall expire at the end of the fourteenth day following this order is signed or at the conclusion of the show cause hearing described above, whichever shall first occur.

SIGNED this the 14th day of October, 1996 at 1:20 o'clock p.m.

/s/Joe B. Brown
JUDGE PRESIDING

JUDGE 95th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT SITTING FOR JUDGE 68TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF DALLAS
COUNTY, TEXAS

[E-LAW Links] [E-Law Web Page]