Insight Investments, LLC v. Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided March 18, 2025·No. 15-24-00133-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-24-00133-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/18/2025 2:18 PM No. 15-24-00133-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK FILED IN IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/18/2025 2:18:56 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Insight Investments, LLC, Appellant, v.

Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 380th District Court, Colin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380-06242-2022 Honorable Benjamin N. Smith, presiding

APPELLEE’S MOTION TO VACATE AND TRANSFER

LeElle B. Slifer State Bar No. 24074549 Newman Nahas State Bar No. 24091576 Dylan French State Bar No. 24116393 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 2121 North Pearl St., Ste 900 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 453-6500 Facsimile: (214) 453-6400 lslifer@winston.com dfrench@winston.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC

1 Appellee Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC respectfully

requests that this Court vacate its January 24, 2025 Order and transfer

this case to the Fifth Court of Appeals because this Court lacks

jurisdiction to decide this case.

The Texas Supreme Court has made clear in its recent Patrick

Kelley decision1 that the “relevant statutes authorize the Fifteenth Court

to hear appeals and writs (1) within the court’s exclusive intermediate

appellate jurisdiction, and (2) appeals [which the Texas Supreme Court]

transfers into the [Fifteenth Court] to equalize the courts of appeals’

dockets.” Opinion at 2. When an appeal does not fall under one of these

two categories, then this Court may exercise jurisdiction only to transfer

the appeal to the court in which it should have been filed. Opinion at 11

(“Because the appeals here do not fall into either category, the motions

are granted.”). That is the case here.

Here, there is no dispute that this appeal does not fall under either

of the two categories described above, and therefore this Court has never

1 See Patrick Kelley and PMK Group, LLC, v. Richard Homminga and Chippewa

Construction Co., LLC, consolidated with Devon Energy Production Company, L.P., et al., v. Robert Leon Oliver, et al., Misc. Docket No. 25-9014 (Supreme Court of Texas, March 14, 2025) (“Patrick Kelley” or the “Opinion”).

1 had jurisdiction over this matter. 2 Instead, this Court is authorized only

to transfer this appeal to the court where it should have been filed in the

first instance. See Opinion 7-8. Accordingly, Stonebriar requests that

this Court transfer this case to the Fifth Court of Appeals. See Tex. Gov't

Code Ann. § 22.201 (“The Fifth Court of Appeals District is composed of

the counties of Collin, Dallas, Grayson, Hunt, Kaufman, and Rockwall.”)

Stonebriar also requests that this Court vacate its January 24, 2025

Order. Since this Court is authorized only to transfer this case, it was

not authorized to review the Trial Court’s ruling on supersedeas or to

issue a stay of enforcement. 3 This Court should therefore vacate its

January 24, 2025 Order, because “[a] court order is void if it is apparent

2 First, this breach-of-contract case between two private parties does not fall under

this Court’s exclusive intermediate jurisdiction, as that is limited to (a) matters brought by or against the State (with enumerated exceptions); (b) matters involving a challenge to the constitutionality or validity of a state statute or rule where the attorney general is a party; or (c) “any other matter as provided by law” (i.e., where a statute specifically authorizes the Fifteenth Court to hear a case). Second, and equally beyond dispute, the second category does not apply here, as the Texas Supreme Court has not transferred this case to the Fifteenth Court to equalize the dockets of the courts of appeals.

3 While subject to certain exceptions, absent here, “as a rule, the decisions of the

Texas Supreme Court apply retrospectively.” Jones v. Clarksville Indep. Sch. Dist., 46 S.W.3d 467, 473 (Tex. App. 2001). This result is all the more required here, as the Supreme Court’s decision concerns this Court’s capacity to hear a subject matter, which “cannot be waived or conferred by agreement” and which “can be raised at any time.” Rusk State Hosp. v. Black, 392 S.W.3d 88, 103 (Tex. 2012).

2 that the court had no jurisdiction,” Custom Corps., Inc. v. Sec. Storage,

Inc., 207 S.W.3d 835, 838 (Tex. App. 2006), and a “court entering a void

order has a ministerial duty to vacate the order.” In re Paxton, 2017 WL

2334242, at *5 (Tex. App. May 30, 2017). Indeed, when a court “issues

an order beyond its jurisdiction . . . such an order is void ab initio.” In re

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020).

For these reasons, Stonebriar respectfully requests that this Court

(1) decline to exercise jurisdiction to decide this case, (2) exercise its

ministerial duty to vacate its January 24, 2025 Order, and (3) transfer

this appeal to the Fifth Court of Appeals.

3 Dated: March 18, 2025 /s/Newman Nahas LeElle Slifer State Bar No. 24074549 Newman Nahas State Bar No. 24091576 Dylan French State Bar No. 24116393 WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 2121 North Pearl St., Ste 900 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 453-6500 Facsimile: (214) 453-6400 lslifer@winston.com nnahas@winston.com dfrench@winston.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellee Stonebriar Commercial Finance LLC

4 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I conferenced with counsel for Insight prior to filing

this Motion and it is my understanding that Insight opposes this Motion.

On March 17, 2025, I emailed counsel for Insight, describing the

Motion which Stonebriar intends to file and its bases, and inquiring as to

whether Insight opposed. Opposing counsel responded (after having

already filed a separate Motion on behalf of Insight): “We disagree with

your statements. We have filed a motion to transfer.”

/s/ Newman Nahas Newman Nahas

5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing

document has been served on March 18, 2025 to all counsel of record via

E-Filing.

/s/ Newman Nahas Newman Nahas

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. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Sarah Shelby on behalf of Newman Nahas Bar No. 24091576 SShelby@winston.com Envelope ID: 98588552 Filing Code Description: Motion Filing Description: Appellee's Motion to Vacate and Transfer Status as of 3/18/2025 2:53 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Stonebriar Commercial Finance, LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Dylan French dfrench@winston.com 3/18/2025 2:18:56 PM SENT

LeElle Slifer lslifer@winston.com 3/18/2025 2:18:56 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Insight Investments, LLC

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

LeElle Slifer 24074549 lslifer@winston.com 3/18/2025 2:18:56 PM SENT

Rachel H.Stinson stinson@wrightclosebarger.com 3/18/2025 2:18:56 PM SENT

Thomas C.Wright wright@wrightclosebarger.com 3/18/2025 2:18:56 PM SENT

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