ACCEPTED 15-25-00019-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/21/2025 3:26 PM NO. ___________________ CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM CHRISTOPHER In Re T. BENTLY DURANT, THOMAS R. DURANT, THE DURANT A. PRINE Clerk CLASSIC DYNASTY TRUST, MICHAEL A. WARD, 8100 PARTNERS, LTD., 8100, MANAGEMENT LLC, 8705 PARTNERS, LTD., 8705 MANAGEMENT LLC, CLASSIC CHEVROLET SUGAR LAND, LLC, CLASSIC CHEVROLET WEST HOUSTON, LLC, CLASSIC ELITE BUICK GMC, INC., AND 16835 CADET PARTNERS, LLC., Relators.
Original Proceeding from the Business Court of the State of Texas, Eleventh Division Cause No. 25-BC11A-0001 Honorable Stacy Rogers Sharp, Judge of the Texas Business Court Fourth Division, Sitting by Assignment
RELATORS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY
SHACKELFORD, MCKINLEY & NORTON, LLP Attorneys for Relators K. Elizabeth Swan Timothy D. Zeiger State Bar No. 24071218 State Bar No. 22255950 eswan@shackelford.law tzeiger@shackelford.law Derek D. Rollins 2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 150 State Bar No. 24029803 Austin, Texas 78746 drollins@shackelford.law Telephone: (512) 469-0900 Lucas Peterson Facsimile: (512) 469-0930 State Bar No. 24121468 lpeterson@shackelford.law 9201 N. Central Expy., 4th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone: (214) 780-1400 Facsimile: (214) 780-1401 ARGUMENT Pursuant to Rule 52.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Relators
seek a stay of the business court’s February 4, 2025 Opinion and Order (“Remand
Order”) remanding the underlying case to the 387th Judicial District Court of Fort
Bend County, Texas. The Remand Order is the subject of Relators’ pending Petition
for Writ of Mandamus.
Relators request consideration of this Motion prior to February 24, 2025 at
9:00 a.m., which is the scheduled time of an in-person oral hearing by the 387th
Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas on the Real Parties in Interest’s
Joint Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary
Injunction. MR:508-518; 555-559. Stay of the Remand Order would preserve the
status quo prior to the challenged action of the business court and prevent further
action against Relators in the Divorce Court pending this Court’s mandamus review.
A. Nature of this Mandamus proceeding Real Parties in Interest Tiffany and Michael Jeffrey Sebastian are going
through a divorce currently pending in Cause No. 24-DCV-318087 in the 387th
Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas (“Divorce Court Case”).
MR:291. The 387th Judicial District Court (“Divorce Court”) is a family court
obligated by statute to give preference to family law matters. TEX. GOV’T CODE §
24.532.
2 On December 3, 2024, in the Divorce Court Case, Real Parties in Interest filed
a third-party petition improperly alleging claims against Relators for, inter alia,
breach of certain agreements between the Parties, and for declaratory judgment of
the alleged rights conferred by those agreements. MR:370-374. Although this third-
party petition was not served on Relators,1 Relators learned of its filing via other
means and timely removed the claims against them to the business court. MR:4. All
removed claims undisputably fell within the business court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction and were filed after September 1, 2024.
Real Parties in Interest subsequently filed a Motion to Remand in the business
court claiming that: 1) Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code only allows for
the removal of an entire case and all claims therein; and 2) the divorce case was
initiated prior to September 1, 2024, thereby frustrating the business court’s subject-
matter jurisdiction over the entire case, including the claims and parties added
thereafter. MR:136, 264. The business court agreed and issued the Remand Order
remanding the entire case to the Divorce Court on February 4, 2025. MR:411.
On Friday, February 21, 2025, without prior notice to Relators, Real Parties
in Interest filed a joint emergency application for a temporary restraining order and
temporary injunction in the Divorce Case, and unilaterally set it for a hearing on
1 On February 10, 2025, Relators agreed to appear and answer or otherwise responsively plead in the Divorce Court Case on or before March 10. 2025.
3 Monday, February 24, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. MR:559. Real Parties in Interest seek a
temporary restraining order that, inter alia, enjoins “interference” with Jeff
Sebastian’s “legal right” and “mandatory obligation” to control “all management
decisions” related to the Classic Dealerships and orders “compliance” with the Buy-
Sell Agreement and various company agreements (the parties’ respective rights
under such agreements being the subject of Real Parties in Interest’s pending claims
for declaratory judgment in the Divorce Court Case). MR:514-515; 555-558.
The Divorce Court is now set to proceed with the unilaterally set hearing on
February 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether it should enter an order that
essentially grants Real Parties in Interest’s claims in the Divorce Court Case before
Relators have even filed an answer. This type of action is precisely why Relators
seek to have this dispute determined by the business court rather than the Divorce
Court pursuant to their Notice of Removal. Relators seek an emergency stay of the
Remand Order to prevent proceedings on the removed claims and the request for
temporary restraining order and injunction in the Divorce Court pending mandamus
review of that Order.
B. Stay is necessary to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction. A stay of the enforcement of a challenged order pending mandamus review of
that order is appropriate to protect the jurisdiction of the appellate court by
maintaining the status quo of the underlying proceeding while the court considers
4 the merits of the original proceeding. In re J.P.L., 653 S.W.3d 767, 770 n.5 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2022, no pet.). “A stay of the underlying proceedings prevents the
parties and the respondent trial court from taking action in the case until they receive
further orders from the appellate court.” In re Bates, 429 S.W.3d 47, 53 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding).
Here, the status quo prior to the challenged Remand Order is that the claims
against Relators were removed to the business court on January 2, 2025 pursuant to
Relators’ Notice of Removal. MR:004. Relators seek to preserve that status quo
pending mandamus review.
If mandamus is granted, the business court, not the Divorce Court, will hear
and decide all claims against Relators, including any claims for a temporary
restraining order and injunction. If a stay of the Remand Order is not granted pending
review, those issues will be decided by the Divorce Court as early as February 24,
2025. If that occurs, irreparable harm to the Classic Dealerships will occur, and the
relief sought by Relators will be mooted, at least in part. A stay of the Remand Order
is necessary to prevent this Court from losing jurisdiction to decide the merits of this
mandamus petition.
C. Stay is required to avoid harm to Relators. Relators may be irreparably harmed if stay of the Remand Order is not granted
and the claims against Relators are permitted to proceed in the Divorce Court
5 pending this Court’s review.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ACCEPTED 15-25-00019-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/21/2025 3:26 PM NO. ___________________ CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM CHRISTOPHER In Re T. BENTLY DURANT, THOMAS R. DURANT, THE DURANT A. PRINE Clerk CLASSIC DYNASTY TRUST, MICHAEL A. WARD, 8100 PARTNERS, LTD., 8100, MANAGEMENT LLC, 8705 PARTNERS, LTD., 8705 MANAGEMENT LLC, CLASSIC CHEVROLET SUGAR LAND, LLC, CLASSIC CHEVROLET WEST HOUSTON, LLC, CLASSIC ELITE BUICK GMC, INC., AND 16835 CADET PARTNERS, LLC., Relators.
Original Proceeding from the Business Court of the State of Texas, Eleventh Division Cause No. 25-BC11A-0001 Honorable Stacy Rogers Sharp, Judge of the Texas Business Court Fourth Division, Sitting by Assignment
RELATORS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY
SHACKELFORD, MCKINLEY & NORTON, LLP Attorneys for Relators K. Elizabeth Swan Timothy D. Zeiger State Bar No. 24071218 State Bar No. 22255950 eswan@shackelford.law tzeiger@shackelford.law Derek D. Rollins 2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 150 State Bar No. 24029803 Austin, Texas 78746 drollins@shackelford.law Telephone: (512) 469-0900 Lucas Peterson Facsimile: (512) 469-0930 State Bar No. 24121468 lpeterson@shackelford.law 9201 N. Central Expy., 4th Floor, Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone: (214) 780-1400 Facsimile: (214) 780-1401 ARGUMENT Pursuant to Rule 52.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Relators
seek a stay of the business court’s February 4, 2025 Opinion and Order (“Remand
Order”) remanding the underlying case to the 387th Judicial District Court of Fort
Bend County, Texas. The Remand Order is the subject of Relators’ pending Petition
for Writ of Mandamus.
Relators request consideration of this Motion prior to February 24, 2025 at
9:00 a.m., which is the scheduled time of an in-person oral hearing by the 387th
Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas on the Real Parties in Interest’s
Joint Emergency Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Temporary
Injunction. MR:508-518; 555-559. Stay of the Remand Order would preserve the
status quo prior to the challenged action of the business court and prevent further
action against Relators in the Divorce Court pending this Court’s mandamus review.
A. Nature of this Mandamus proceeding Real Parties in Interest Tiffany and Michael Jeffrey Sebastian are going
through a divorce currently pending in Cause No. 24-DCV-318087 in the 387th
Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas (“Divorce Court Case”).
MR:291. The 387th Judicial District Court (“Divorce Court”) is a family court
obligated by statute to give preference to family law matters. TEX. GOV’T CODE §
24.532.
2 On December 3, 2024, in the Divorce Court Case, Real Parties in Interest filed
a third-party petition improperly alleging claims against Relators for, inter alia,
breach of certain agreements between the Parties, and for declaratory judgment of
the alleged rights conferred by those agreements. MR:370-374. Although this third-
party petition was not served on Relators,1 Relators learned of its filing via other
means and timely removed the claims against them to the business court. MR:4. All
removed claims undisputably fell within the business court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction and were filed after September 1, 2024.
Real Parties in Interest subsequently filed a Motion to Remand in the business
court claiming that: 1) Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code only allows for
the removal of an entire case and all claims therein; and 2) the divorce case was
initiated prior to September 1, 2024, thereby frustrating the business court’s subject-
matter jurisdiction over the entire case, including the claims and parties added
thereafter. MR:136, 264. The business court agreed and issued the Remand Order
remanding the entire case to the Divorce Court on February 4, 2025. MR:411.
On Friday, February 21, 2025, without prior notice to Relators, Real Parties
in Interest filed a joint emergency application for a temporary restraining order and
temporary injunction in the Divorce Case, and unilaterally set it for a hearing on
1 On February 10, 2025, Relators agreed to appear and answer or otherwise responsively plead in the Divorce Court Case on or before March 10. 2025.
3 Monday, February 24, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. MR:559. Real Parties in Interest seek a
temporary restraining order that, inter alia, enjoins “interference” with Jeff
Sebastian’s “legal right” and “mandatory obligation” to control “all management
decisions” related to the Classic Dealerships and orders “compliance” with the Buy-
Sell Agreement and various company agreements (the parties’ respective rights
under such agreements being the subject of Real Parties in Interest’s pending claims
for declaratory judgment in the Divorce Court Case). MR:514-515; 555-558.
The Divorce Court is now set to proceed with the unilaterally set hearing on
February 24, 2025, at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether it should enter an order that
essentially grants Real Parties in Interest’s claims in the Divorce Court Case before
Relators have even filed an answer. This type of action is precisely why Relators
seek to have this dispute determined by the business court rather than the Divorce
Court pursuant to their Notice of Removal. Relators seek an emergency stay of the
Remand Order to prevent proceedings on the removed claims and the request for
temporary restraining order and injunction in the Divorce Court pending mandamus
review of that Order.
B. Stay is necessary to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction. A stay of the enforcement of a challenged order pending mandamus review of
that order is appropriate to protect the jurisdiction of the appellate court by
maintaining the status quo of the underlying proceeding while the court considers
4 the merits of the original proceeding. In re J.P.L., 653 S.W.3d 767, 770 n.5 (Tex.
App.—Tyler 2022, no pet.). “A stay of the underlying proceedings prevents the
parties and the respondent trial court from taking action in the case until they receive
further orders from the appellate court.” In re Bates, 429 S.W.3d 47, 53 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, orig. proceeding).
Here, the status quo prior to the challenged Remand Order is that the claims
against Relators were removed to the business court on January 2, 2025 pursuant to
Relators’ Notice of Removal. MR:004. Relators seek to preserve that status quo
pending mandamus review.
If mandamus is granted, the business court, not the Divorce Court, will hear
and decide all claims against Relators, including any claims for a temporary
restraining order and injunction. If a stay of the Remand Order is not granted pending
review, those issues will be decided by the Divorce Court as early as February 24,
2025. If that occurs, irreparable harm to the Classic Dealerships will occur, and the
relief sought by Relators will be mooted, at least in part. A stay of the Remand Order
is necessary to prevent this Court from losing jurisdiction to decide the merits of this
mandamus petition.
C. Stay is required to avoid harm to Relators. Relators may be irreparably harmed if stay of the Remand Order is not granted
and the claims against Relators are permitted to proceed in the Divorce Court
5 pending this Court’s review. The Divorce Court could enter a Temporary
Restraining Order enjoining Relators from managing businesses of which Relators
own the majority and controlling interest. MR: 555-558. Real Parties in Interest are
seeking to control virtually every aspect of Relators’ businesses for an indefinite
period. Id. Relators would be harmed if such a critical issue were incorrectly decided
by the wrong court, which may never have encountered a similar issue.
The business court was created as a specialty court designed specifically to
hear cases such as the present case against Relators. Removal is a matter of right that
may be exercised without agreement or hearing. TEX. GOV’T. CODE § 25A.006(d),
(f)(1), (g). Here, Relators seek to enforce their right to avail themselves of the
expertise, specialization, and efficiency of the business court. If stay is not granted
and the claims against Relators are permitted to proceed in the Divorce Court
pending review, including the potential temporary restraining order and injunction,
Relators’ right to remove will be irreversibly prejudiced. Similar to a forum selection
clause, an appellate remedy is inadequate if Relators’ right to have this matter heard
by the Business Court is not upheld because allowing the trial to go forward will
“vitiate and render illusory the subject matter of an appeal”—i.e., trial in the proper
forum. See In re Lisa Laser USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 880, 883 (Tex. 2010) (forum
selection clause).
6 Even if this Court later grants mandamus and vacates the Remand Order, the
damage will have been done. Control of Relators’ businesses may have been
assumed by Real Parties in Interest with purported expansive power and decision-
making authority, including over expenditures, financial obligations and debts,
contracts, and personnel decisions such as hiring and firing. MR:555-558. Moreover,
Relators will have been improperly deprived of their right to make their own
business decisions and manage their own operations. The extent of such damage to
Relators may not be measurable, but it is certain to be irreparable.
Real Parties in Interest will not be harmed by the granting of a stay. The
Remand Order does not affect their interspousal divorce claims, which all parties
agree may proceed in the Divorce Court – even if a stay is granted preventing the
remand of the claims against Relators. And, if the Remand Order is stayed, Real
Parties in Interest may seek any necessary emergency relief involving Relators from
the business court.
D. Immediate action is required by this Court on an emergency basis.
Relators request the Court to consider this Motion and grant a stay of the
Remand Order prior to the hearing currently scheduled in the Divorce Court on
February 24, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. Because of the impending hearing, there is
insufficient time for Relators to present this request to the business court for
consideration and determination before submitting it to this Court.
7 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Relators respectfully request that the Court (1) grant this Motion; (2) order
that the business court’s February 4, 2025 Opinion and Order remanding the cause
to the 387th Judicial District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas is stayed pending the
Court’s disposition of this Petition for Writ of Mandamus and that no other action
on the removed claims be taken in the 387th District Court pending review; and (3)
grant Relators all other appropriate relief.
Respectfully submitted,
SHACKELFORD, MCKINLEY & NORTON, LLP
/s/ K. Elizabeth Swan K. Elizabeth Swan State Bar No. 24071218 eswan@shackelford.law Derek D. Rollins State Bar No. 24029803 drollins@shackelford.law Lucas Peterson State Bar No. 24121469 lpeterson@shackelford.law 9201 N. Central Expressway, 4th Floor Dallas, Texas 75231 Telephone (214) 780-1400 Facsimile (214) 780-1401
Timothy D. Zeiger State Bar No. 22255950 tzeiger@shackelford.law 2600 Via Fortuna, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746
8 Telephone (512) 469-0900 Facsimile (512) 469-0930
ATTORNEYS FOR RELATORS T. Bently Durant, Thomas R. Durant, The Durant Classic Dynasty Trust, Michael A. Ward, 8100 Partners, Ltd., 8100 Management LLC, 8705 Partners, Ltd., and 8705 Management LLC, Classic Chevrolet Sugar Land, LLC, Classic Chevrolet West Houston, LLC, Classic Elite Buick GMC, Inc., and 16835 Cadet Partners, LLC
9 RULE 52.10(a) CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This is to certify that, on February 21, 2025, via email, my office notified all
parties that Relators would be filing a motion requesting to stay the business court’s
February 4, 2025 Opinion and Order remanding the case to the 387th Judicial District
Court of Fort Bend County, Texas.
/s/ K. Elizabeth Swan K. Elizabeth Swan
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
This is to certify that, on February 21, 2025, via email, my office conferred
with counsel for all parties, who confirmed that they were opposed to the relief
requested in this Motion.
/s/ Lucas Peterson Lucas Peterson
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been
served on the parties through their counsel of record listed below on this February
21, 2025, in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5.
BOHREER LAW FIRM PLLC SCHEEF & STONE, LLP E. Michelle Bohreer J. Mitch Little michelle@bohreerlaw.com mitch.little@solidcounsel.com Pritesh Soni Steven Ovando pritesh@bohreerlaw.com steven.ovando@solidcounsel.com 777 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 950 2600 Network Blvd., Suite 400 Houston, Texas 77056 Frisco, Texas 75034 Counsel for Real Party in Interest Michael Jeffrey Sebastian, DICECCO LAW PARTNERS, PLLC Individually and on behalf of the John Coselli, III Sebastian Community Estate, and john@diceccolawpartners.com Derivatively on behalf of the Classic Jill K. Evangelista Dealerships jill@diceccolawpartners.com Joseph W. DeCecco Hon. Stacy Rogers Sharp joe@diceccolawpartners.com Judge of the Texas Business Court, 777 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 900 Fourth Division, Sitting by Houston, Texas 77056 Assignment BCClerk@txcourts.gov Counsel for Real Party in Interest William P. Clements Building Tiffany Lynn Sebastian 300 West 15th Street, Suite 606 Austin, Texas 78701 Respondent
11 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. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Rosa Balderas on behalf of Kathleen Swan Bar No. 24071218 rbalderas@shackelford.law Envelope ID: 97667548 Filing Code Description: Motion for Emergency Relief Filing Description: Relator's Emergency Motion to Stay Status as of 2/21/2025 3:32 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Hon. Stacy RogersSharp BCClerk@txcourts.gov 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Joseph W.DiCecco joe@diceccolawpartners.com 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Jill K.Evangelista jill@diceccolawpartners.com 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
John Coselli, II john@diceccolawpartners.com 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Steven Ovando steven.ovando@solidcounsel.com 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
J. Mitch Little mitch.little@solidcounsel.com 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Pritesh Soni pritesh@bohreerlaw.com 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
E.Michelle Bohreer michelle@bohreerlaw.com 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Rosa Balderas rbalderas@shackelford.law 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Timothy D.Zeiger tzeiger@shackelford.law 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Lucas Peterson lpeterson@shackelford.law 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
Derek D. Rollins drollins@shackelford.law 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT
K. Elizabeth Swan eswan@shackelford.law 2/21/2025 3:26:11 PM SENT