In Re Silver Star Properties REIT, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas

In Re Silver Star Properties REIT, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 15, 2025·No. 15-25-00136-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00136-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/15/2025 10:29 AM No. 15-25-00136-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK FILED IN ________________________________ 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/15/2025 10:29:14 AM In the Court of Appeals for the CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Fifteenth Judicial District ________________________________

In re: Silver Star Properties REIT, Inc., et al., Relators

Original Proceeding from the Texas Business Court, Eighth Division, Fort Worth, Texas, Cause No. 25-BC08B-0016 Hon. Brian Stagner, Judge Presiding

RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY

Relators ask the Court for an emergency stay of the proceedings below. A. INTRODUCTION

1. Relators are Silver Star Properties REIT, Inc., Silver Star CRE, LLC, Silver

Star CRE II, LLC, Silver Star Delray, LLC, who filed an Application for TRO

and Temporary Injunction in the 48th Judicial District Court. The 48th issued

a TRO on August 4, 2025, and set a Temporary Injunction hearing on August

12, 2025 Appendix 5.

2. Real Parties in Interest are BSPRT CRE Finance, LLC, FBRED BDC

Finance, LLC, BSPRT CS Loan, LLC, who removed the case to business

court, where a new Temporary Injunction hearing is currently set for August

20, 2025. Appendix 8. 3. Respondent is the Honorable Brian Stagner, Judge Presiding, Texas Business

Court, Eighth Division, who declined to rule on whether the Eighth Division

has subject-matter jurisdiction but intends to hold a trial on the merits of

Relators’ injunctive relief on Wednesday, August 20, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.

Appendix 1; 8.

4. An emergency stay of the proceedings below is necessary to protect the parties

from the risk of orders void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, until such

time as this Court determines whether this case belongs in the Texas Business

Courts or the 48th Judicial District Court.

5. On August 14, 2025, Relators filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in this

Court, asking the Court to instruct the Eighth Division it does not have

subject-matter jurisdiction because the “amount in controversy” is less than

$10 million, and to remand the case to the 48th Judicial District Court.

6. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus ask the Court to provide guidance on an

question extremely important to the jurisprudence of the State, in situations

very likely to recur and which would otherwise evade meaningful review:

By what standard or rule of law shall the Texas Business Courts determine their jurisdiction quickly and easily – particularly in cases where emergency, expedited injunctive relief is pending (and where, as here, that relief is the core of Relators’ claims), where failure to determine jurisdiction promptly and properly exposes the litigants to void orders and waste of valuable resources if the trial court ultimately lacks subject-matter jurisdiction?

2 7. Without regurgitating Relators’ entire argument here, in general the Petition

encourages this Court to move away from the lengthy and time-consuming

briefing practice Texas courts with far broader jurisdiction use (which focus

primarily on “does the plaintiff have a case”), and instead to adopt the

approach now used by federal courts with similarly narrow constraints on

subject-matter jurisdiction (type of claims and “amount in controversy”) and

instead determine the issue promptly from the plaintiff’s complaint (“does this

court have jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s case?”) – even if the complaint

is amended after removal.

8. As indicated in the Certificate of Conference below, Relators are unable to

ascertain whether Real Parties in Interests agree to or oppose this emergency

motion for stay.

B. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

9. The Court may grant temporary relief pending its determination of an original

proceeding. Tex.R.App.P. 52.10(b).

10. This emergency stay is necessary to maintain the status quo of the parties and

to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction to consider the merits of the original

proceeding. In re Reed, 901 S.W.2d 604, 609 (Tex.App. – San Antonio 1995,

orig. proceeding). Specifically, a stay prevents a potentially wrong court from

3 determining the merits of the Temporary Injunction relief until this Court can

determine the right court to hear it.

11. All facts supporting this Motion can be readily ascertained from the Appendix

and Petition, and no Affidavit is necessary to establish facts not included in

the appellate record, not known to the Court in its official capacity, or not

within the personal knowledge of the attorney signing this Motion.

C. CONCLUSION

12. This Court’s granting of a stay is necessary to preserve the status quo so that

valuable rights are not lost in the interim by either side, which would render

this Court’s ultimate determination of the jurisdictional issue largely

irrelevant to this case, and would waste valuable public and private resources.

D. PRAYER

13. For these reasons, Relators ask the Court for an emergency stay to maintain

the status quo of the parties and preserve the Court’s jurisdiction to consider

the merits of Relators’ original proceeding and determine the appropriate trial

court in which this case should proceed.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On August 14, 2025, counsel for Relators sent counsel for Real Parties in Interest an E-mail attaching a courtesy copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and indicating Relators’ intention to file an Emergency Motion for Stay of the underlying proceedings. Counsel for Relators received no response. This morning, August 15, 2025, counsel for Relators followed up

4 by E-mail and expressly inquired whether Real Parties in Interest agree to or oppose this Motion. As of the filing of this Motion, counsel for Relators has received no response to either E-mail and is therefore unable to determine the Real Parties in Interest’s position on the stay.

Respectfully submitted,

Walter L. Taylor State Bar No. 19727030 taylorlawfirmdfw@gmail.com TAYLOR LAW FIRM 6630 Colleyville Blvd, Suite 200 Colleyville, Texas 76034 Tel: (817) 770-4343 Tel: (512) 474-6600 Fax: (512) 474-6700 ATTORNEY FOR RELATORS

TRAP 52.10(a) CERTIFICATION

By my signature above, I certify that – as required by Tex.R.Civ.P. 52.10(a) – on August 14, 2025, at 1:43pm and 1:49pm, respectively, I notified all parties by expedited means (E-mail) that this motion for temporary relief would be filed either yesterday evening or this morning. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify by my signature above that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has this day been served via certified mail, return receipt requested, electronic service, facsimile or hand delivery in open court, upon the Real Parties in Interest and Respondent on this 15th day of August, 2025: Jacob Sparks Email: Jacob.Sparks@NelsonMullins.com Brent T. Buyse Email: Brent.Buyse@NelsonMullins.com Xenna Davis Email: Xenna.Davis@NelsonMullins.com NELSON MULLINS RILEY &SCARBOROUGH, LLP

5 Hon. Brian Stagner Judge Presiding Texas Business Court Eighth Division 1515 Commerce Street, Ste. 170 Fort Worth, TX 76102 BCDivision8B@txcourts.gov

6 Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI