In Re T. Bently Durant; Thomas R. Durant; The Durant 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 v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 18, 2025·No. 15-25-00019-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00019-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/18/2025 1:37 PM NO. 15-25-00019-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK FILED IN IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 15th COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXASAUSTIN, TEXAS AT AUSTIN 3/18/2025 1:37:25 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

IN RE T. BENTLY DURANT, THOMAS R. DURANT, THE DURANT CALSSIC DYNASTY TRUST, MICHAEL A. WARD, 8100 PARTNERS, LT.D., 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 Texas Eleventh Division; Cause No. 25-BC11A-0001; Hon. Stacy Rogers Sharp, Judge of the Texas Business Court Fourth Division, Sitting by Assignment

REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE STAY GRANTED BY THE COURT

BYRON K. HENRY E. MICHELLE BOHREER State Bar No. 24008909 State Bar No. 06717100 byron.henry@solidcounsel.com michelle@bohreerlaw.com WALKER STEVEN YOUNG PRITESH SONI State Bar No. 24102676 State Bar No. 24063926 walker.young@solidcounsel.com pritesh@bohreerlaw.com SCHEEF & STONE, L.L.P. BOHREER LAW FIRM PLLC 2600 Network Boulevard, Suite 400 777 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 950 Frisco, Texas 75034 Houston, Texas 77056 Telephone: (214) 472-2100 Telephone: (832) 856-3006 Facsimile: (214) 472-2150 Facsimile: (832) 856-2891

1 Pursuant to Rule 52.10(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Real

Parties-In-Interest, Tiffany and Michael Jeffrey Sebastian request that the Court

reconsider and dissolve the stay granted on February 21, 2025, if not the entire

mandamus. The Court should consider the motion on an emergency because Relators

have a temporary injunction scheduled in their new filed state district court case for

March 27, 2025 while they rely on this Court’s stay to prevent Real Parties-In-

Interest from pursuing their own injunctive relief in the first filed case and court with

dominant jurisdiction over the dispute. See Exhibit 2.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Relators used this Court, in particular the Court’s emergency stay power,

to improperly prejudice and deny the Real Parties-In-Interest Jeff and Tiffany

Sebastian (the “Sebastians”) their day in court. On the eve of an injunction hearing

against the Relators, the Relators obtained an emergency stay from this Court to

prevent the Sebastians from proceeding forward on injunctive relief the Sebastians

sought in a district court in Fort Bend County on the basis that a Business Court

rather than a State District Court had jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute. With the

stay in place and totally contrary to the representations made to this Court, the

Relators then filed their own action in a District Court in Tarrant County and

obtained a TRO against the Sebastians. The Relators manipulated and misled the

Court to prevent the Sebastians from getting a TRO so that the Relators could forum

2 shop and get their own TRO harming and prejudicing the Sebastians.

The Court should not tolerate such gamesmanship. Realtors cannot claim a

Fort Bend County District Court lacks jurisdiction while they themselves filed and

sought relief from a Tarrant county District Court. The stay should be lifted

immediately, the mandamus should be dismissed, and the Relators should be held to

account for their bad faith filing to obtain the improper stay.

II. ARGUMENT

The Sebastians sued the Relators in their divorce proceeding in 387th Judicial

District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas (the” 387th Case” or “Fort Bend Case”)

after the Relators improperly ousted the Sebastians and took control of the

businesses related to various car dealerships. The Relators immediately removed the

claims brought against them in the Fort Bend Case to the business court claiming

that the dispute between the parties belonged in the newly created Business Court

even though it was not removable by statute. See Realtor’s Emergency Motion to

Stay at p. 2; see also Sebastians’ Response to the Petition for Mandamus filed March

3, 2025. After considering the parties motions and arguments, the Honorable Stacy

Rogers Sharp granted the remand back to the Fort Bend District Court. Id.

Prevailing on remand, the Sebastians sought to move forward on their

injunctive relief and a request for a receiver, scheduling them for a hearing on

February 24, 2025. Id. The Fort Bend court even granted the Sebastians’ TRO.

3 However, before an injunction hearing could occur, the Relators filed this mandamus

and sought an emergency stay of the Fort Bend Case proceeding on the grounds that

the dispute between the parties belonged in the Business Court, not the Fort Bend

District Court, and unless a stay against Sebastians’ injunctive relief was granted,

the Relators’ would be prejudiced by such rulings because the Business Court was

the proper forum. See Realtor’s Motion at p. 2. This Court granted the stay on

February 21, 2025 and the 387th Court in deference even withdrew its TRO order

entered the same day.

Contradicting their own arguments that the Business Court has jurisdiction

over the parties’ disputes to obtain a stay against Sebastians’ attempt to get

injunctive relief, Relators then filed a new lawsuit in the Tarrant County District

Court on March 13, 2025, and obtained their own injunctive relief barring the

Sebastians from participating in their own business 1. See Exhibits 1 and 2, true and

correct copy of the lawsuit and TRO obtained by the Relators.

The Court should not tolerate Relators’ gamesmanship and naked forum

1 Notwithstanding the misleading hyperbole in the Tarrant County Petition, Relators knew about the special meeting Jeff Sebastian called, the excuse for the new lawsuit and the injunctive relief they obtained, before it moved for mandamus relief and a stay in this Court. See Exhibit 1 at Pg. 253. Instead of addressing it in the mandamus or the stay, the Relators let the meeting proceed, so that they could forum shop and obtain their temporary relief by making misleading claims about the special meeting and the Sebastians—who could not proceed on their own injunctive relief against the Relators because of the stay. The Sebastians are trying to get the improperly obtained TRO dissolved but cannot get a hearing date prior to the TI hearing scheduled for March 27, 2025.

4 shopping. Through the new lawsuit, Relators cannot be permitted to seek

declarations of their ownership and management control in a forum of their choosing

while they stall the prior filed action by Sebastians regarding the same dispute and

which court has dominant jurisdiction because the Sebastians filed their case first in

Fort Bend County before it was improperly removed to the Business Court, and is

now subject to this frivolous mandamus in which Realtors obtained a stay with

misleading claims.

Considering Relators’ bad faith and contradictory filings, the Court should lift

the stay immediately and dismiss the mandamus. In re Hogan Lovells US, LLP, No.

01-17-00975-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 2319 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

Mar. 26, 2019, no pet.)(lifting a stay under Rule 51.10(c) and dismissing an improper

mandamus).

The Court should further consider sanctioning against the Relators under Rule

52.11 because their appeal and motion to stay are groundless and filed just to cause

delay. Tex R. App. P.

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

In Re T. Bently Durant; Thomas R. Durant; The Durant 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 v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

In Re T. Bently Durant; Thomas R. Durant; The Durant 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 v. the State of Texas (In Re T. Bently Durant; Thomas R. Durant; The Durant 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 v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goswami v. Metropolitan Savings & Loan Ass'n
751 S.W.2d 487 (Texas Supreme Court, 1988)
Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co.
84 S.W.3d 198 (Texas Supreme Court, 2002)
Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp.
160 S.W.2d 509 (Texas Supreme Court, 1942)