In Re ColossusBets Limited v. the State of Texas
Opinion
ACCEPTED
15-25-00150-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
9/23/2025 3:21 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
No.15-25-00150-CV AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
15th Court of Appeals of Texas
In Re ColossusBets Limited, Relator
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST JERRY B. REED’S RESPONSE TO RELATOR’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS UNDER TRAP 52.10
Original Proceeding from Cause No. 25-BC03A-0007 Business Court of Texas Third Division Austin, Texas
LAGARDE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Richard L. LaGarde
State Bar No. 11819550
Mary LaGarde
State Bar No. 24037645
230 Westcott St., Suite 100 Houston, TX 77007
TEL: (713) 993-0660
richard@lagardelaw.com
mary@lagardelaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Table of Contents i Index of Authorities ii I. Background 1 II. Summary of Arguments 2 III. Standard for Temporary Relief 3 IV. Argument 3 A. No Compelling Circumstances Are Shown 3
B. The Status Quo Is Ongoing District Court
4
Proceedings
C. Discovery Will Be Used Regardless 4 D. A Stay Would Prejudice Reed 5 E. Relator Is Unlikely to Obtain Mandamus Relief 6 V. Prayer 7 Certificate of Service 8 Certificate of Compliance 8
i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Coalition of Cities for Affordable Utility Rates v. Third Court of Appeals, 787 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. 1990) .............................................................2,3,4 Statutes and Rules Tex. R. App. P. 52.10 ............................................................................ 3 Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) ........................................................................... 8 Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.004(b)(2) ......................................................... 2, 6 Other Authorities Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents ........................................................................................... 5
ii
TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:
Real Party in Interest, Jerry B. Reed, respectfully asks the Court to deny ColossusBets Limited’s motion to stay proceedings pending disposition of its mandamus petition.
I. BACKGROUND
Real Party in Interest, Jerry Reed, alleges that Relator ColossusBets and its co-defendants orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to rig the $95 million April 22, 2023 Lotto Texas drawing by bulk-printing millions of tickets using counterfeit QR codes and unauthorized terminal access. Reed, who held a legitimate winning ticket for the May 17, 2023 drawing, lost more than $52 million in diminished winnings as a direct result.
Defendants’ scheme destabilized the Texas Lottery itself.
Defendants secured the $95 million jackpot by controlling almost all number combinations. The fallout was swift: the Governor ordered a Texas Rangers investigation, the Lieutenant Governor called it the “biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the Texas Lottery,” the Executive Director of the Lottery Commission resigned, and the Legislature dissolved the Lottery Commission altogether.
Mr. Reed’s suit was filed April 8, 2025 in Travis County District Court. On May 9, 2025, Rook GP, LLC and Rook TX, LP removed the case to the Business Court under Chapter 25A. On June 18, 2025, the Business Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, citing allegations about the date of formation of the Rook defendants.
Plaintiff then filed a Fourth Amended Petition on August 5, 2025, expressly removing allegations regarding the date of formation of the Rook defendants and disclaiming any reliance on governance or internal affairs theories. On August 25, 2025, Judge Andrews remanded the case, holding that the Business Court no longer had jurisdiction under §25A.004(b)(2). ColossusBets now seeks mandamus.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Supreme Court has made clear that a stay of trial court proceedings should not be granted absent “compelling circumstances”. Coal. of Cities for Affordable Util. Rates v. Third Court of Appeals, 787 S.W.2d 946, 947 (Tex. 1990). None are shown here.
ColossusBets seeks a blanket freeze that would derail critical deadlines and discovery already ordered by the trial court. But it
identifies no irreparable harm, no threat to appellate jurisdiction, and no compelling reason to halt proceedings. By contrast, a stay would inflict concrete prejudice on Reed, including jeopardizing his ability to serve elusive foreign defendants by the December joinder deadline and delaying essential tracing of jackpot proceeds so that the individual gamblers can be identified and joined.
Because Relator fails to demonstrate compelling circumstances, Rule 52.10 does not permit a stay.
III. STANDARD FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
Temporary relief under TRAP 52.10 is discretionary and appropriate only to protect appellate jurisdiction and maintain the status quo. The Supreme Court has cautioned that granting a stay “increases delay and expense and should not be done absent compelling circumstances.” Coal. of Cities, 787 S.W.2d at 947.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. No Compelling Circumstances Are Shown
Relator identifies no compelling circumstance that would justify the extraordinary relief it seeks. Its motion does not allege irreparable harm, much less demonstrate why routine participation in discovery would warrant freezing the entire case. The only “harm” Relator describes is having to comply with discovery and appear at hearings—ordinary burdens of litigation that do not qualify as compelling circumstances.
B. The Status Quo Is Ongoing District Court Proceedings The remand order has already been effectuated. The District Court has resumed jurisdiction, set October 1 hearings on Reed’s motions to compel, and is actively administering the case. Granting a stay would not preserve the status quo but change it, interrupting pending hearings and shielding defendants from discovery obligations. That is the very type of disruption the Supreme Court warned against in Coalition of Cities.
C. Discovery Will Be Used Regardless Even if mandamus were granted, the discovery now proceeding will not be wasted. The case will still require discovery into Rook’s ownership, the identity of the gamblers who funded the April 22, 2023 ticket pool, and the tracing of jackpot proceeds. In addition, ColossusBets’ Special Appearance necessitates jurisdictional discovery into its Texas contacts.
This evidence will be relevant in any forum and under any pleading. Necessary discovery is not irreparable injury—and certainly not a compelling circumstance that justifies the delay and expense of a stay.
D. A Stay Would Prejudice Reed The service and joinder deadline is approaching. The Agreed Scheduling Order requires service and joinder by December. Three defendants are located in the United Kingdom and must be served under the provisions of the Hague Convention. One of them, Zeljko Ranogajec, is notoriously difficult to serve. He’s known in gambling circles as “The Joker” and is so elusive he’s been termed the “Loch Ness Monster” by the British press. He resides in a high-security London apartment block across from Buckingham Palace. Any further delay risks making timely service on Ranogajec and the other U.K. defendants impossible.
Identifying the gambling pool members is likewise time sensitive.
Reed must trace funds to the individuals who composed the gambling pool and join them before the December deadline. That process requires subpoenas to financial institutions and discovery from defendants. A stay would freeze these steps and dangerously compress the schedule.
Discovery hearings are also set for October 1. The District Court is poised to compel the Rook defendants to comply with a discovery order issued by the trial court on August 4, 2025, but ignored to date by those defendants.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In Re ColossusBets Limited v. the State of Texas (In Re ColossusBets Limited v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.