Mandamus Denied and Opinion Filed November 19, 2013

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01582-CV IN RE PROFINITY, LLC AND CHAD D. ERTEL, Relators Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-03980-A MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Lang, and Evans Opinion by Justice FitzGerald In this original mandamus proceeding, relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by holding them in contempt for conduct that “allegedly violated an agreed injunction” which had been vacated by the trial court and by ordering that (1) the jury be informed of the existence and contents of the agreed injunction; (2) the jury be instructed that relators willfully violated the agreed injunction; and (3) inhibiting relator Profinity, LLC’s ability to present its anti-trust counter claim by precluding it from arguing that real party constructed barriers to entry. The facts and issues are known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before the Court, we conclude relators have not shown they have no adequate remedy at law. See In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

/Kerry P. FitzGerald/ 131582F.P05 KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE

–2–