The Houston [14th] Court of Appeals has granted Texas Central Railroad’s petition for writ of mandamus to compel a Harris County district court to vacate an ex parte TRO in a class action lawsuit brought by “unsuspecting tenants” on the railroad’s property.
In re Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure Inc., and Its Representatives Michael Bui, Caitlin Appling, Chuck Keyes, Jordan Riness, Travis Tekell, and T Land Management, LLC (No. 14-25-00682-CV; October 9, 2025) arose from the unlawful occupation of property owned by Texas Central in Harris County. In 2020 Texas Central bought 41 properties in the White Oaks Fall neighborhood for purposes of future construction of high-speed rail. After the purchase, squatters and “unsuspecting tenants” (victims of third-party fraud) began occupying the property without authorization or a lease from Texas Central. Texas Central and T Land Management commenced eviction proceedings in Harris County JP courts. Some of the unsuspecting tenants filed a pro se class action lawsuit against Texas Central in Harris County district court on behalf of “[a]ll current and former tenants … who suffered from fraudulent conduct, negligence, or wrongful eviction.” Plaintiffs claimed possessory rights to the properties but not superior title.
Last August the district court granted Plaintiffs’ request for an ex parte TRO preventing Texas Central from evicting Plaintiffs or interfering with their possession of the properties. Texas Central moved to dissolve the TRO, asserting that it was “absolutely void because it exceeds the jurisdiction conveyed to district courts (as original jurisdiction for writs of possession and forcible entry and detainer suits lie with the justice of the peace courts).” It argued further that the TRO was void because it didn’t state why it was granted ex parte without notice, define the alleged injuries, or set a bond, as required by the TRCP. Texas Central filed a petition for writ of mandamus while this motion was pending.
In a per curiam opinion, the court of appeals granted the writ on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin Texas Central from evicting or dispossessing Plaintiffs. Pursuant to § 24.004(a), Property Code, justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the issue of immediate possession, In order for a district court to enjoin the exercise of that exclusive jurisdiction in forcible entry and detainer cases, “there must be a showing that the justice court is without jurisdiction to proceed in the cause or the defendant has no adequate remedy at law.” McGlothlin v. Kliebert, 672 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Tex. 1984). Additionally, “[a] justice court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate a forcible detainer action ‘only if resolution of a title dispute is a prerequisite to determination of the right to immediate possession.’” Espinoza v. Lopez, 468 S.W.3d 692, 695 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, no pet.). Since in their class action Plaintiffs did not claim superior title to the properties (only possession), the district court wasn’t required to adjudicate title, leaving the justice court with exclusive jurisdiction over Texas Central’s forcible detainer actions.
Plaintiffs, moreover, didn’t lack an adequate remedy at law without the TRO. Plaintiffs can defend themselves in justice court using the same arguments as in the class action. “Consequently,” the court concluded, “the TRO, which ordered immediately possession of the properties to Plaintiffs, is void ab initio for exceeding the district court’s jurisdiction over the class action lawsuit.” The court directed the district court to vacate its order, effectively allowing the forcible entry and detainer actions to proceed.
