Order to Show Cause in Texas

What Is an Order to Show Cause?

Background

Texas courts possess not only “all powers necessary for the exercise of [their] jurisdiction and the enforcement of [their] lawful orders,” but also the power to “require that proceedings be conducted with dignity and in an orderly and expeditious manner and [to] control the proceedings so that justice is done.” (Tex. Gov’t Code, § 21.001(a)-(b).)

Disobedience of an injunction may be punished as contempt. (Tex. R. Civ. P. 692.) Upon submission of an affidavit, the court may issue a show cause order, directing and requiring the violator to appear and show cause as to why (s)he should not be adjudged in contempt. (Id.)

How to Structure the Motion

Contempt is broadly defined to include “disobedience to or disrespect of a court by acting in opposition to its authority.” (Ex Parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 [Tex. 1995].) Contemptible acts are those which are “reasonably calculated to impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court in the discharge of its duties.” (In re Bell, 894 X.W.2d 119, 127 [Tex. Spec. Ct. Rev. 1995]; Ex parte Hall, 854 S.W.2d 656, 658 [Tex. 1993].)

Civil contempt is the failure to do what is ordered to be done; criminal contempt is the doing of what has been prohibited. (Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542, 545 [Tex. 1976].)

A movant in a civil contempt proceeding bears the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that

a court order is in effect;
the order required certain conduct by the respondent; and
the respondent failed to comply with the order.

(See Ex parte Padron (1978) 565 S.W.2d 921, 924.)

To show criminal contempt, the movant must provide “proof beyond a reasonable doubt of:

a reasonably specific order;
a violation of the order; and
the willful intent to violate the order.”

(Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 [Tex. 1995].)

Contempt cannot issue unless a party provides notice of “when, how, and by what means [the other party] has been guilty of the alleged contempt.” (In re Parks, 264 S.W.3d 59, 62 [Tex. App. 2007].) The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure require an affidavit of accusation in all cases of constructive contempt. (Tex. R. Civ. P. 692.) The affidavit must identify the contemnor and describe the acts constituting the disobedience. (Id.) When no facts are stated to support conclusions in an affidavit, the affidavit is not proper proof of contempt. (Rizkallah v. Conner, 952 S.W.2d 580, 587 [Tex. App. 1997].)

Response

“Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature,” and thus the alleged contemnor is “entitled to procedural due process throughout the proceedings.” (Ex parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d 833, 835 [Tex. 1990].) Among those procedural process rights accorded an alleged contemnor is the “right to reasonable notice of each alleged contemptuous act.” (Id.) The due process requirement is one of “full and complete notification” of the conduct with which the alleged contemnor is charged; the alleged contemnor must be given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges by defense or explanation. (Id.) A contempt order rendered without such adequate notification is void. (Ex parte Adell 769 S.W.2d 521, 522 [Tex. 1989].)

The Court’s Decision

It is well established that for a party to be held in contempt for disobeying a court order, the order must spell out the details of compliance in clear, specific, and unambiguous terms so that the party will readily know exactly what duties or obligations the order imposes. (Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43,44 [Tex. 1967].) The judgment must also order the party to perform the required acts. (Ex parte Brister, 801 S.W.2d 833, 834 [Tex. 1990].) Interpretation of the provisions of the court order in question should not rest upon implication or conjecture. (Ex parte Blasingame, 748 S.W.2d 444, 446 [Tex. 1988].)

“The power to punish for contempt is an inherent power of the court. It is an essential element of judicial independence and authority.” (Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 259 [Tex. 1995]; Ex parte Browne, 543 S.W.2d 82, 86 [Tex. 1976].) “If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then the are courts impotent.” (Id.)

A court has “broad and inherent power” to punish a person who disobeys or disrespects the court by acting in opposition to its authority. (In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360, 364 [Tex. 2011].) Despite the breadth of the court’s contempt power, the Supreme Court has warned that it is a tool that should be exercised rarely and with caution. (Herring v. Houston Nat’l Exch. Bank, 255 S.W. 1097, 1104 [1923].)

The court’s contempt powers are exercised rarely and contempt is, therefore, presumed not to exist. (Ex parte Jacobs, 664 S.W.2d 360, 364 [Tex. App. 1984]; Deramus v. thornton, 333 S.W.2d 824, 830 [Tex. 1960].) “A judgment of contempt without support in the evidence is void, and the court is without jurisdiction to order punishment [in] the absence of some evidence of contemptuous disobedience.” (Deramus v. thornton, 333 S.W.2d 824, 830 [Tex. 1960].)

Documents for Order to Show Cause in Texas

Sort By

BERNARD TUBEILEH, et al vs. GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC , et al document preview

PROPOSED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, FOR ADMISSIONS, AND SANCTIONS - MOTION HEARI…

6 pages

CAUSE NO. DC-23-07534 BERNARD TUBEILEH and SINOSTAR § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF INVESTMENTS LLC, §§§§§§§§§ Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS, LLC, and GLOBAL OIL & GAS FIELDS OKLAHOMA LLC, …

Case Name BERNARD TUBEILEH, et al vs. GLOBAL OIL & GAS TEXAS LLC , et al