FILED DISTRICT CLERK OF JEFFERSON CO TEXAS 6/12/2017 4:01:01 PM JAMIE SMITH . DISTRICT CLERK NO. D-200,185 ee IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF In re: Tammy Reeves, et al JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 136 JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRST AMENDED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ‘TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COME NOW TAMMY REEVES, indi dually and as next friend of D.R., a minor and as Representative of the Estate of Dennis Reeves, AUSTIN REEVES, JUDITH JONES and JIMMY W. JONES, hereinafter Movants, and file this First Amended Application for Temporary Restraining Order, and for cause of action would show unto the Court as follows: 1, FACTUAL BACKDROP On the afternoon of May 23, 2017, Dennis Reeves was found dead in his pickup truck, located on the campus of Kirbyville High School. Mr. Reeves surviving widow, sons and parents deserve answers and, in particular, fruthful answers as to what led to this tragic occurrence. DENNIS REEVES was married to TAMMY REEVES and they had two sons (AUSTIN REEVES and D.R,, a minor.) He was also blessed to have his parents (JUDITH and JIMMY W. JONES) living nearby. They were well-respected family that dedicated themselves to public service and, in particular, the education of young people. As of May 23, 2017, Dennis was the principal at Kirbyville High School. Tammy taught 4" and 5® grade reading at Evadale |.S.D., and Dennis’ mother had been a teacher for most of her adult life. Dennis’ father had served the public as a Justice of the Peace. Austin graduated IPfrom Kirbyville High School in May, 2017 while D.R. was a member of the Kirbyville H.S. Class of 2019. This family seeks a Temporary Restraining Order so that evidence will be preserved and that these answers can be determined. If that evidence uncovers responsibilty or culpability for the death of Dennis Reeves, then this family should have the opportunity to follow that evidence and seek justice. Today, and with this filing, they seek no monetary award. Instead, they seek the evidence that will lead them to the truth, On information and belief, this family is concemed that (a) the truth has been silenced and distorted and (b) evidence of the truth has been, or is at risk to be, destroyed 2. PARTIES Movants herein are (1) TAMMY REEVES, the surviving widow of DENNIS REEVES, Individually and as Next friend of D.R., a minor, and as Representative of the Estate of Dennis Reeves; (2) AUSTIN REEVES the surviving son of DENNIS REEVES; and (3) JUDITH JONES and JIMMY JONES, the surviving parents of DENNIS REEVES. The Movants will be referred to herein either as “Movants” or as “Reeves Family’. Movants herein request immediate entry of @ Temporary Restraining Order against the following individuals and entities (also referred to herein as Respondents): 24 KIRBYVILLE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (“KCISD”) was, as of May 23, 2017, the employer of Dennis Reeves. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. 2|[Page2.2 DR. THOMAS A. WALLIS was, as of May 23, 2017, the superintendent of KCISD. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a 2.3 GEORGIA SAYERS was, as of May 23, 2017, the assistant superintendent of KCISD. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. 24 CHAD GEORGE was, and is, the president of the KICSD School Board/Board of Trustees, This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ P. 21a, 25 JOEY DAVIS was, and is, the vice-president of the KICSD School Board/Board of Trustees. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. 2.6 CLINT SMITH was, and is, the secretary of the KICSD School Board/Board of Trustees. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ, P. 21a 2.7 JOE BRECHT was, and is, a board member of KCISD School Board/Board of Trustees. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. 3|Page2.8 AMY FOUNTAIN was, and is, a high school counselor at KCISD. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. 2.9 MARCIA MORGAN was, and is, an employee (presumably a secretary) at KCISD. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. 2.10 D'WANNA RASNICK, was, and is, the principal as the elementary school at KCISD. As of May 23, 2017, MARCIA MORGAN worked as her assistant. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a. 2.11 DUSTIN RUTHERFORD was, and is, an employee at KCISD. This respondent has appeared herein and service of this pleading has been made upon respondent's counsel of record as provided by Tex. R. Civ, P. 21a. 2.12 STACI RUTHERFORD was, and is, an employee at KCISD. She may be served at 2725 CR 639, Buna, Texas 77612. 2.43 REGION 5 EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER was, and is, an entity located in Beaumont, Texas that provides training and services to various school districts, including employment services. Those school districts include KCISD. This respondent may be served by serving its executive director, Mr. Danny Lovett, at 360 Pine Street, Suite 500, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. 4[Page2.14 DANNY LOVETT was, and is, the executive director for co-Respondent, Region 5 Education Service Center. This respondent may be served at 350 Pine Street, Suite 500, Beaumont, Jefferson County, Texas. 3. The need for such relief is immediate and, if not granted, will cause Movants ireparable harm. 4. Venue is proper in this Court in accordance with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §15.002, et seq, 5. Movants are investigating the facts and circumstances regarding the death of DENNIS REEVES in order to determine (1) the truth of the facts and circumstances and (2) whether they have any right to recovery as a result of DENNIS REEVES’ death, Movants have not been allowed access to view or inspect documents, materials and tangible items that do, or are reasonably calculated to, have a bearing on the facts and circumstances leading to the death of DENNIS REEVES. The REEVES FAMILY is concemed that such documents, materials and tan, le items will either be moved, altered, or destroyed. Such circumstances require immediate relief as irreparable harm may or will occur if any such documents, materials, items and tangible or electronically stored information are moved, altered or destroyed. 6. Further, and should Movants institute an action under Texas law for damages, the REEVES FAMILY will carry the burden of proof in any such action and it will be necessary for Movants to have access to the documents, materials and items to the provide evidence s[Pagenecessary to sustain that burden of proof. Further, and should such an action involve expert testimony, that testimony must be based upon facts reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field upon which evidence is sought. This will necessitate such expert having access to said documents, materials and items, and electronically stored information, and it is vital that these be preserved. Movants believe that, in the event this Temporary Restraining Order is not entered, the documents, materials and tangible items sought to be preserved may be destroyed or otherwise, altered. Without the opportunity for the Movants and/or their experts to view such, Movants and their experts would be deprived of necessary and valuable information and, perhaps, the opportunity to present an essential element of Movants’ cause of action. Therefore, Movants would have no adequate remedy at law because any action at law for damages will be severely hampered and, probably, untenable. ¥. ‘The REEVES FAMILY would request that the Respondents herein be restrained from altering or destroying various documents, materials and tangible items that will or may form the basis of Movants’ proof in this or any subsequent litigation. This would require the preservation of the following evidence and Movants request that Respondents be ordered to preserve the following 1. All minutes, notes, correspondence, or any other written materials from all KCISD Board meetings for the past three (3) years; 2. All cellular devices, laptops, computers and related equipment issued to the following individuals by KCISD: a. Dr. Tommy Wallis, b. Georgia Sayer 6|Pc. Chad George d. Joey Davis fe. Clint Smith f. Joe Brecht 9. Amy Fountain h. Marcia Morgan; i. Dwana Rasnick i. Dustin Rutherford k. Staci Rutherford |. Jimmy Dodson 3. All computers, laptops, computer and other related equipment issued to Dennis Reeves by KCISD 4. All cellular devices, laptops, computers and related equipment owned, used or possessed by the following individuals: a. Dr. Tommy Wallis b. Georgia Sayer ©. Chad George d. Joey Davis e. Clint Smith f. Joe Brecht g. Amy Fountain h, Marcia Morgan; i. Dwana Rasnick j. Dustin Rutherford T|Pagek. Staci Rutherford Danny Lovett 5. All surveillance equipment of the area in which Mr. Reeves death occurred. This Tequest includes, but is not limited to video, photographs, or other data retrieved, 6. All emails, texts, photographs or other data obtained from any cellular device issued to Dennis Reeves during his employment: 7. All emails, texts, photographs or other data obtained from any cellular device issued to any party to this cause of action for the time period of August 1, 2016 to the present 8. All computer files generated by Dennis Reeves during his employment. This request includes, but is not limited to all notes, memorandums, emails, photographs, or other electronically stored information 9. The complete personnel files for: b. e. f. Dennis Reeves Dr. Tommy Wallis Georgia Sayer ‘Amy Fountain Marcia Morgan; Dustin Rutherford 10.Statements and investigative materials relative to the investigation or circumstances surrounding the investigation of Dennis Reeves. 11.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the hiring of Dr. Thomas Wallis as superintendent of KCISD including, but not limited to, any inquiry regarding his prior employment(s). 12.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the investigation of any alleged affair that Dennis Reeves may have had during the time that Dennis Reeves was an employee of KCISD. 8|Page13.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the investigation of any alleged affair that Marcia Morgan may have had during the time that Marcia Morgan was an employee of KCISD. 14. Any statement that was written or prepared (in whole or part, whether completed oF not) by Marcia Morgan regarding any alleged affair involving Dennis Reeves, 15.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the above-referenced statement that was written or prepared (in whole or part, whether completed or not) by Marcia Morgan regarding any alleged affair involving Dennis Reeves. 16. Any other evidence and things relating to any of the parties herein. This includes, but is not limited to all documents, whether paper, electronically stored information, or information otherwise stored, relative to Dennis Reeves, the matters at issue in this action, or any other named party to this action. 17.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding any contact, advice or communication between Region 5 Education Service Center and/or Danny Lovett and any other person or entity regarding Respondents, KCISD and any of the other individual respondents named herein. 18.Any and all statements, investigatory materials, documents, materials and tangible items regarding any claim of, or investigation into, any harassment (or other) complaints made against Dennis Reeves, Tammy Reeves or any other members of the Reeves’ family All of the above requests include items, documents and materials in tangible form, or by electronically stored information (ESI). 8. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movants request and pray that @ Temporary Restraining Order be issued without notice to Respondents, requiring Respondents their agents, servants, insurers, and/or employees, directly or indirectly, to maintain or do the following until further Order of this Court. Respondents are more specifically ORDERED to preserve and maintain the following: 1. All minutes, notes, correspondence, or any other written materials from all KCISD. Board meetings for the past three (3) years; 2. All cellular devices, laptops, computers and related equipment issued to the following individuals by KCISD: 9|Pagea. Dr. Tommy Wallis b. Georgia Sayer c. Chad George d. Joey Davis fe. Clint Smith 1. Joe Brecht g. Amy Fountain h. Marcia Morgan; i. Dwana Rasnick j. Dustin Rutherford k. Staci Rutherford Jimmy Dodson 3. All computers, laptops, computer and other related equipment issued to Dennis Reeves by KCISD 4. All cellular devices, laptops, computers and related equipment owned, used or possessed by the following individuals: a. Dr. Tommy Wallis b. Georgia Sayer c. Chad George d. Joey Davis e. Clint Smith f. Joe Brecht g. Amy Fountain 10|Pah. Marcia Morgan; i. Dwana Rasnick j. Dustin Rutherford k. Staci Rutherford I. Danny Lovett 5. All surveillance equipment of the area in which Mr. Reeves death occurred. This request includes, but is not limited to video, photographs, or other data retrieved. 6. All emails, texts, photographs or other data obtained from any cellular device issued to Dennis Reeves during his employment; 7. All emails, texts, photographs or other data obtained from any cellular device issued to any party to this cause of action for the time period of August 1, 2016 to the present. 8. All computer files generated by Dennis Reeves during his employment. This request includes, but is not limited to all notes, memorandums, emails, photographs, or other electronically stored information 9. The complete personnel files for a. Dennis Reeves b. Dr. Tommy Wallis ©. Georgia Sayer d. Amy Fountain e. Marcia Morgan; f. Dustin Rutherford 10.Statements and investigative materials relative to the investigation or circumstances surrounding the investigation of Dennis Reeves. 11.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the hiring of Dr. Thomas Wallis as superintendent of KCISD including, but not limited to, any inquiry regarding his prior employment(s). [Page12.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the investigation of any alleged affair that Dennis Reeves may have had during the time that Dennis Reeves was an employee of KCISD. 13.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the investigation of any alleged affair that Marcia Morgan may have had during the time that Marcia Morgan was an employee of KCISD. 14. Any statement that was written or prepared (in whole or part, whether completed of not) by Marcia Morgan regarding any alleged affair involving Dennis Reeves 15.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding the above-referenced statement that was written or prepared (in whole or part, whether completed or not) by Marcia Morgan regarding any alleged affair involving Dennis Reeves. 16. Any other evidence and things relating to any of the parties herein. This includes, butiis not limited to all documents, whether paper, electronically stored information, or information otherwise stored, relative to Dennis Reeves, the matters at issue in this action, or any other named party to this action. 17.All documents, materials and tangible items regarding any contact, advice or ‘communication between Region 5 Education Service Center and/or Danny Lovett and any other person or entity regarding Respondents, KCISD and any of the other individual respondents named herein. 18.Any and all statements, investigatory materials, documents, materials and tangible items regarding any claim of, or investigation into, any harassment (or other) complaints made against Dennis Reeves, Tammy Reeves or any other members of the Reeves’ family. All of the above requests include items, documents and materials in tangible form, or by electronically stored information (ESI). 10. All parties named herein are restrained from prohibiting Paul ‘Chip Ferguson, members and employees of The Ferguson Law Firm, and their designees from viewing, photographing, examining and inspecting the items listed in this Temporary Restraining Order. 12|Page"1 All parties named herein are restrained from prohibiting Paul ‘Chip! Ferguson, members and employees of The Ferguson Law Firm, and their designees from abtaining and downloading data from the cellular devices, computers, laptops, or surveillance equipment identified herein. 12. Movants pray and request that the Court order that the cellular devices, computers, laptops, surveillance equipment, film, recordings, documents, materials and tangible items made the basis of this Temporary Restraining Order be produced to counsel for Movants for inspection, forensic evaluation and download and copying within a date certain. 13. Movants further pray that Respondents be cited to appear and show cause, and that upon such hearing, a Temporary Injunction be issued, enjoining such Respondents, their agents, servants, insurers and/or employees from directly and/or indirectly, violating any of the terms of this Order. Further, Movants pray for such other and further relief, at law or in equity, together with all costs of Court, and all other relief to which Movants maybe justly entitled to receive. 13|PagRespectfully Submitted, ‘THE FERGUSON LAW FIRM, LLP 360 PINE STREET, SUITE 1440 Beaumont, Texas 77704-4905 (409) 832-9700 (phone) (409) 832-9708 (fax) : a] Paul “Chip” I Paul F. “Chip” Ferguson, Jr State Bar No. 06919200 cferquson@theferqusonlawfirm.com Lamy C. Hunter State Bar No. 10300700 thunter@theferqusonlawfirm.com ATTORNEYS FOR MOVANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | hereby certify that @ true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been furnished to all counsel on this 12" day of June, 2017, by electronic service, in accordance with Tex.R.Civ.P. By: _of Paul “Chip” Ferguson Paul F. “Chip” Ferguson, Jr. 14[PageCAUSE NO. D-200,185 INTH DISTRICT COURT OF In re: TAMMY REEVES, et al. JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS 136'" JUDICIAL DISTRICT. RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION AND. MOTION TO DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Movants are the wife, children, and parents of former Kirbyville High School Principal Dennis Reeves, who obtained an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order in this Court on June 6, 2017. Respondents are the Kirbyville Consolidated Independent School District (*Kirbyville CISD” or the “District") as well as named trustees, administrators, and staff members. Movants allege no cause of action, assert no facts that would give this Court jurisdiction over the family’s “search for the truth,” and seek by way of remedy broad and virtually unlimited authority to access the personal, work, and official records of schoo! district employees and trustees as well as an injunction against the destruction of school district, private, personal, and work electronic records that may be in the possession of the named Respondents. The facts in issue are the fodder for a soap opera serial, not a cause of action in a court of law. ‘There being no grounds for jurisdiction before this Court or action for injunctive relief, the Temporary Restraining Order should be immediately dissolved and the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. L BACKGROUND FACTS Dennis Reeves was employed as Principal of the Kirbyville High School from May 19, 2014 until May 3. 2017. Dr. Thomas Wallis was hired as Superintendent of Schools of the Kirby ville Consolidated Independent School District on April 1, 2017.On Friday, May 19, 2017, Dennis Reeves apparently confessed to his wife. Tammy Reeves, that he had an ext smarital affair with his former secretary during the preceding school year. That evening, Tammy Reeves sent the former secretary, a Kirbyville CISD employee, an angry text message: “He told me everything today. You are a lying piece of trash... Do your children know what their mother did?” On May 22, 2017, Mrs. Reeves sent another hostile text message, calling the former secretary a “needy whore” and “disgusting form of human being, Mrs. Reeves also expressed her anger on social media, posting an image of a personal note written by the former secretary to Dennis Reeves, next to the text, “You realize you're still alive only because { can’t afford a hitman, right?” and railing publiely against the ‘secretary” who had been “f***ing my husband.” On the aftemoon of May 23, 2017, the former secretary asked for a meeting with Assistant ‘Superintendent Georgia Sayers. In the meeting with Ms. Sayers, the employee revealed for the first time the ure of the relationship between her and Mr. Reeves. She expressed concern about the social media harassment from Mrs, Reeves and described her concerns about workplace harassment from Mr. Reeves, Ms. Sayers asked Dr. Wallis to join the meeting. Dr. Wallis was apprised of the affair and the hostile communications from Mrs. Reeves. The conflict between Tammy Reeves and the former secretary began the preceding school year when rumors surfaced in the community that Dennis Reeves and his secretary were having an alfair, The Superimtendent at the time, Richard Hazelwood, confronted both Reeves and his secretary; both adamantly denied the affair. Text messages between Tammy Reeves and the former secretary from that time period suggest that a similar denial had been made to Tammy Reeves. Beginning in the fall of 2015, Tammy Reeves sent the former secretary text messages and posted taunting messages on social media, such as the following mocking posts made in December of 2015: “I wonder sometimes how you can sleep ‘at night because of the horrible person you really are... some of us have read your ‘secret? e-mails”; “Trash will always be trash”; “Buck teeth and bad skin...LOL.” The former secretary requested, and received, a new position on another campus. Tammy Reeves’ social media posts from this time period reflect an “I win" message, taunting the former secretary for having sought the interest of Dennis Reeves.Dennis Reeves’ May 19, 2017 confession followed shortly alter another employee had independently complained of workplace harassment On April 11, 2017, a Kirbyville CISD teacher met with Principal Reeves in a tens meeting in which the Principal raised his voice, making the teacher feel “uncomfortable.” ‘The teacher threatened to show Dr, Wallis the hundreds of text messages that she had received from Mr. Reeves. A witness to the ‘meeting noted that Mr. Reeves was emotional and “shaking” and in a statement he later made to Dr. Wallis, Mr. Reeves admitted that he had been frustrated and had raised his voice. ‘On April 13, 2017, the teacher carried through on her threat, and complained to Kirbyville CISD ‘administrators that Reeves had been sending her an excessive number of unwanted text messages, expressing that she could no longer work under Reeves” supervision, The teacher threatened to resign. Dr. Wallis counseled with Reeves, advised him to immediately cease contacting the teacher by text message, directed him to “stay ofT” social media, and directed him not to return to the campus for the remainder of the day to allow fora cooling off period. Reeves sent his former secretary text messages, asking her to intercede with the teacher in an attempt to improve relations between the teacher and Reeves. During the ensuing weeks, both women complained to District administrators. The former secretary informed Dr. Wallis that she had been receiving hostile text messages and social media postings from Mrs. Reeves for a period of time, When the former secretary disclosed Reeves’ text messages, Wallis asked about the nature of the relationship between the two, The former secretary denied any romantic connection, and both women stated they wanted the messaging from Reeves to stop, but they did not want to pursue formal harassment complaints against him. The Distriet Respondents are not aware of the specific faets that caused Dennis Reeves to admit ‘on May 19, 2017 the truth of his earlier affair, but the proximity in time to the April 13, 2017 cooling off period and the renewed contaets to the former secretary all took place during this timeframe, suggesting that Tammy Reeves also began asking her husband difficult questions at home,‘On May 23, 2017. after the former secretary gave her verbal statement to Superintendent Wallis and Assistant Superintendent Sayers, the two administrators asked the former secretary t0 commit her complaint to writing while the administrators met with Reeves. Reeves was presented with the certainty ‘of an administrative investigation and was informed that he would be administratively suspended for three days pending the investigation, Reeves was asked for his laptop, keys, and District-issued cell phone. Reeves pulled out his District-issued cell phone and began quickly deleting messages, Reeves was offered the opportunity to resolve the situation with his reputation intact by resigning, Forced with two unpleasant alternatives, Reeves tendered his resignation in lie of an investigation into his conduct, He brought some materials back to the office, and told Sayers, “I'm not od, I'm not good.” Ms. Sayers had supervised Mr. Reeves for three years, and the two had developed a working understanding: “It’s not good” meant that Mr, Reeves had committed an error that required Sayers to intervene. Ms. Sayers understood Mr. Reeves’ statement to mean that he had made a serious mistake. Ms. Sayers acknowledged, “I know.” ‘A short time later, using his own weapon, Reeves shot himself in his vehicle that was parked in the school parking lot. ‘The events took place so quickly that the former seeretary never had time to finish her written complaint. ‘On May 24, 2017, the District was i undated with media inquiries into the suicide. The police investigation was ongoing, and Mr. Reeves’ children attended the Kirbyville schools. Dr, Wallis did not fully disclose the complexity of Mr, Reeves’ employment and marital difficulties in his initial media statements. His efforts to protect the reputation of Dennis Reeves and his family snowballed into media allegations of deception. Dr. Wallis’ statement to the police was released days later, and a more complete account of the moments immediately preceding Mr. Reeves" decision to take his own life was released to the public. Afier the suicide, Tammy Reeves approached District administration, asking for the District issued cell phone so that she could remove family photos. The District cooperated with thot request and wave her the phone. Tammy Reeves removed or deleted information without interference from theDistrict. Mes. Reeves asked! for a copy of her husband’s letter of resignation; that letter was provided to her. She asked for the former secretary's written statement. At that point in time, the District had received multiple media requests for the same document. The administration was advised by its school attorneys that an Attomey General ruling would be needed—the document contains intimate personal information that is likely not subject to the Public Information Act, Mrs. Reeves was informed that she would need to wait for the Attorney General ruling. Mrs, Reeves also asked to remove personal items from her husband's office. Administrators gathered up school documents from the office: confidential student records and school records were boxed up, removed, and stored before Mrs. Reeves was permitted access to the office. Mrs. Reeves was then allowed to privately remove anything she wanted from her husband's former office. No other requests for records or information were reveived from Mrs, Reeves prior to the filing of the Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order. 1. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES 1, Kirbyville CISD and its trustees and employees are immune from suit; the request for injunctive relief must be denied for want of jurisdiction. Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Tex. Natural Res Conservation Comm'n v. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849, 855 (Tex. 2002). The existence of subject-matter Jurisdiction is to be decided by the court based on the pleadings or other evidence. Texas Dept. of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.WW. 34 217, 226-27 (Tex. 2004). When a plea to the jurisdiction challenges the pleadings, the Court must determine if the pleader has alleged tacts that affirmatively demonstrate the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the cause. fd: Tex. Ass i of Bus. v. Tex, Ai Control Bd., 852 S.W.24 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). Governmental, or sovereign, immunity from suit destroys the jurisdiction of the trial court and is properly asserted in a plea to the jurisdiction. City of Dallas v. Turley, 316 S.W.3d 762, 767 (Tex. App— Dallas 2010, pet. denied). Only an express waiver of governmental immunity by the legislature or the entity itself grants jurisdiction to the trial court.Kirbyville CISD is a public school district and local governmental subdivision of the State of Texas and, as such, is immune from suit, Burr v. Bernhard, 562 S.W.2d 84, 846 (Tex. 1978): Braun. Trustees of Victoria Independent School District, 114 S.W.2d 947 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio 1938, writ red); Coleman y. Beaumont Independent School District, 496 S.W.2d 245 (Tex. Civ. App. Beaumont 1973, writ rePd n.te.). In their off I capacities, employees of a government entity, such as Kirbyville CISD, are ‘entitled to the protections of govemmental immunity to the same extent as the governmental entity Nueces County v, Ferguson, 97 S.W.3d 205, 215 (Tex. App-—Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.); See also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM, CODE ANN, §101.102(b); Sinith v, Davis, 999 S.W.2d 409, 416 (Tex. App— Dallas 1999, no pet). Persons sued in both their offi and individual capacities may assert both sovereign and official immuni to the extent that they were acting within the scope of their employment, Id, As a result, the individually named Respondents have all the immunities and protections that apply to Kirbyville CISD and are immune from suit in their individual and official capacities under the doctrine of | governmental/sovereign immunity. Respondents’ immunity deprives this Court of jurisdiction, Movants have alleged no cause of action within the Application for Temporary Restraining Order, nor have they pleaded facts that would confer jurisdiction upon this Court, Movants admit they are ‘merely seeking to preserve records and tangible things in order to investigate “the truth” in relation to the death of Dennis Reeves. They plead: “On information or belief. this family is concerned that (a) the truth has been silenced and distorted and (b) evidence of the truth has been, or is at risk to be, destroyed." No jurisdictional facts have been pleaded that would confer jurisdiction upon the court as against the sovereign immunity afforded the District and its employees. The fuets pleaded negate jurisdiction, By the facts pleaded—specifically the admission that no cause of action is being asserted—the Court cannot confer jurisdiction over the Respondents. and the Temporary Restraining Order should be dissolved and this matter dismissed. To the extent the facts alleged in the Application hint at the type of claim Movants may be 6exploring, those allegations would point to a prospective negligence-type tort claim, Texas school districts and their employees are protected by the doctrine of sover and cannot be sued for eign immuni tort claims absent an express legislative waiver of immunity. Tex. Dep't of Parks é& Wildlife, 133 S.W3d at 224, Sovereign immunity deprives a court of subject matter jurisdiction when properly pleaded in a plea to the jurisdiction, id. Further, the doctrine of sovereign immunity protects public schoo! districts from negligence actions with only one exception as allowed by the Texas Tort Claims Act.’ Movants’ Application negates jurisdiction of the Court over this matter. Respondents’ Plea to the Jurisdiction should be granted. 2. Movants? allegations are insufficient to support a temporary injunction. Injunctive relieP is an extraordinary remedy and not a matter of tight. Bumnaru v. Ford Motor Co. 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex. 2002). ‘To obtain a tempora 'y injunetion, the Appli int must plead and prove three specific elements: (1) a eause of action against the defendant; (2) a probable tight to the relie? sought; and (3) probable, imminent, and irreparable injury in the interim. Bumaru v, Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Tex, 2002); Walling v, Metcalfe, 863 S.W.2d 56, $8 (Tex. 1983); Reliant Hosp. Partners, LEC v. Cornerstone Healthcare Group Holdings, Ine., 374 8.W.34 488, 495 (Tex. App. Dallas, 2012). A Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) is a form of preliminary injunctive relief, A TRO must, therefore, establish a probable right of recovery through a claim or cause of action, Ifa claim or cause of action is not alleged, the trial court lacks authority to issue an injunction. Brittingham v. Ayala, 995 S.W.2d 199, 201 (Tex. App-—San Antonio 1999, pet. denied), Movants not only plead no cause of action, they expressly acknowledge that they do not have one. Accordingly, the Court lacks the authority to issue any injunctive relief, including both a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. This exception exists only for eluims involving propedty damage, personal injury, and death eaused by the school distriet's use oroperation ofa motor vehicle, allegations that are wholly absent here. Tex. C1v, Rac. & Rent, CODE $101,051The Temporary Restr: ining Order is void on its fact. Rule 680 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure states, in part: Every temporary restraining order granted without notice shall be endorsed with the date and hour of issuance: shall be filed forthwith in the clerk’s office and entered of record; shall define the injury and state why it is irreparable and why the order was grainted without notice” TEX. R. CIV. P, 680 (emphasis added). defined. i, Noinjury The TRO is void on its face because an injury is not defined within it, The TRO does not reference any particular cause of action pleaded by the Movants, nor does it reference any particular statute or other law under which Movants” rights or interests have allegedly been violated, In fact, the jout the TRO, TRO expressly disclaims any cause of action, as it states that Movants will be deprived of the opportunity to present an essential element of proof in an action to be brought against prospective Respondents.” The TRO specifies that various records or tangible things of or relating to District business be preserved and unaltered. But injun ive relief may not be granted without a party first asserting a cause of action, See Cagper v. Litton Loan Savings, LP, 325 8.W 3d 766, 769 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2010, pet. denied). Effectively, the TRO improvidently purports to function as a pre-suit notice to preserve pending investigation of a possible claim. ii, The TRO does not state why the alleged injury notice to the Respondents was not granted. irreparable or why prior Without an injury, there ean be no basis for finding. an irreparable injury. There is no explanation of what cause of action the “evidence” to be preserved under the TRO would support; so, by extension, there is no specification of how the injury would be irreparable. Respondents were not offered the opportunity to address the Court; no basis for an ex parte filing has been offered. Deceptively. Movants allege Respondents have been stonewalling the Reeves’ family’s search for the “truth,” although all of their requests for information made to date have been granted or responded to. Clearly, Tammy Reeves has more information about her late husband’s frame of mind on May 23. 2017than she has shared either with the District or with the Court. As a governmental entity, Kirbyville CISD. operates under the Texas records retention statute, TEX. GOW’T CODE § 441.158, and no evidence has been offered in support of Movants’ allegations of concems of records destruction. What the TRO has accomplished, however, is a frenzy of speculation. Kirbyville CISD has a contract for document shredding services to assist the District in maintai ing the confidentiality of student records. At the end of the school year, confidential student records. such as extra copies of student special education evaluations, student test papers left over from the previous semester, and paper copies of graded materials that have been entered into the formal student gradebooks, are shredded. Federal privacy laws prevent the District from disposing of these materials in a fashion that would violate student confidentiality Conspiracy theorists and overzealous community members met the shredder teuck last week, convinced of some form of massive cover-up. As a consequence, boxes of trash still line the halls of the schoo! and administration building, and the shredding contractor must be paid for providing no services. For the foregoing reasons alone. the TRO is void. An Order that fails to meet any of the essential requirements of Rule 680 is void. See Jn re Office of the Aity. Gen., 257 S.W.34 695, 697 (Tex. 2008), Venue is improper. Movants’ contention that venue is proper in accordance with Section 15,002 of the Texas Civil Practice and) Remedies Code is incorrect. Mandatory venue is not asserted, and no facts are pled that would implicate the Courts of Jefferson County. If the Movants could articulate a lawsuit, that suit would have to be brought in the county in which all oF a substantial part of the events or omission giving rise to the claim occurred. or the county of the defendant's residence at the time the cause of action accrued (if the defendant is a natural person). oF the county of the defendant's principal office in this state (if defendant is not a natural person). See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §15.002(a} 1)-(4). ‘The events or alleged events that give rise to the Application for Temporary Restraining Order took place in Jasper County. Kirbyville CISD is in Jasper County. All of the Movants and all of the Respondents are located or reside in Jasper County or Newton County. It is clear error when a trial court makes no effort to Follow the rule regarding venue determination. See. e.g, Inre Team Rocket, 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008).No competent evidence supports the TRO. Movants" Application for Temporary Restraining Order is supported only by a brief affidavit of counsel in the form of a verified pleading. Counsel does not allege (nor can he allege) that he has personal knowledge of the facts: no person with personal knowledge has offered evidence in support of the motion, In the context of a request for temporary injunctive relief, a probable right to recovery and probable injury ust be established by competent evidence. Millwrights Local Union No. 2484 v. Rust Eng'g Co. 433 S,W.2d 683, 686 (Tex. 1968); rmendariz v. Mora, 526 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tex. 1975). A sworn pleading does not constitute evidence. Millwrights Local Union No, 2484, 433 S.W.2d at 686; Rogers v. Howell, 592 S.W.2d 402, 403 (Tex. Civ. App—Dallas 1979, writ ref'd nce), No competent evidence supports the suggestion that anyone with the District would destroy. alter or tamper with the information, records, or equipment subject to the Order. Movants maintained in their Application that they “believe that, in the event this Temporary Restraining Order is not entered, the documents, materials and tangible items sought to be preserved may be destroyed or otherwise, altered.” First, mere subjective impression or belief is not competent evidence that records or information relating to the death of Dennis Reeves likely will be altered or destroyed. The TRO cites no irreparable injury. Irreparable injury is an essential element of an injunction. There is no specitication of what cause of action the “evidence” to be preserved under the TRO would support: so, by extension, there is no specification of how the injury would be irreparable. The TRO is void. An order that fails to meet any of the essential requirements of Rule 680 is void. See In re Office of the Atty. Gen,, 257 S.W.3d 695, 697 (Tex. 2008), ML PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED. Kirbyville Consolidated Independent School District, Dr. Thomas A. Wallis, Georgia Sayers, Chad Georg e, Joey Davis, Clint Smith, Amy Fountain, Marcia Morgan, D'Wanna Rasniek, and Dustin Rutherford respectfully pray that the Court dismiss thiscase for want of jurisdiction, and alternatively, that it dissolve the subject Temporary Restraining Order. Respectfully submitted, POWELL & LEON, LLP Sara Hardner Leon SBN: 08980250 115 Wild Basin Road, Suite 106 Austin, Texas 78746 P: 512-494-1177 F: 512-494-1188 onvdepowell-leon, John J, Janssen SBN: 00789402 802 N. Caraneahua, Suite 655 P: 361-452-2804 F: 361-452-2743 jianssenaipovwel ATTORNEYS FOR KIRBY VILLE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, [hereby certify that the foregoing Brief in Support of the Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order was served by Electronic Filing E-Service and hand delivery to the following counsel of record on the 13" day of June, 2017: Mr, Paul “Chip” Ferguson, Je Facsimile: (409) 832-9708 The Ferguson Law Firm, LLP 0 Pine Street, Suite 1440 Beaumont, Texas 77704-4905 ‘Safa Hardner Leon