of the trespass on the market value of the property an ief claim must be dismissed because it is not an independent action. Plaintiff does not address defendant’s argument. Although plaintiff separated his claim into two counts, trespass and injunc-tive relief, he only alleges the tort of trespass. Injunctive relief is a type of relief he seeks for the alleged trespass, not a cause of action. Scott v. Tanner, No. 01-02-00668-CV, 2003 WL 22862806, at *3 n. 2 (Tex.App.2003) (‘We recognize that a request for injunctive relief is not an independent cause of action; rather, it is a type of relief.”). If derivative of the trespass claim, plaintiffs claim for injunctive relief must be dismissed. See, e.g., WorldPeace v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 183 S.W.3d 451, 462 n. 20 (Tex.App.2005) (<HOLDING>). The court has reviewed the record and the
holding that where there is insufficient evidence to permit a reasonable factual finding of originality the question may be disposed of as an issue of law at summary judgment recognizing a claim for injunctive relief is disposed of when expressly tied to claims dismissed on summary judgment holding that summary judgment on chapter 93a claim is appropriate when summary judgment is granted on fraud claim and chapter 93a claim is solely based on the underlying claim for common law fraud recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim holding that summary judgment motion itself must expressly present reasons entitling movant to summary judgment