Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. A/K/A Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. All Star Imports, Inc. D/B/A World Car Mazda North and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Court of Appeals of Texas

Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. A/K/A Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. All Star Imports, Inc. D/B/A World Car Mazda North and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided August 5, 2025·No. 15-24-00039-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

15-24-00017-CV

FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/5/2025 2:33 PM

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

NO. 15-24-00039-CV CLERK FILED IN

15th COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

MAZDA MOTOR OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. A/K/A MAZDA MOTOR ClerkOF AMERICA, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

ALL STAR IMPORTS, INC. D/B/A WORLD CAR MAZDA NORTH and BOARD OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the 279th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-I-GN-23-005034

MAZDA’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S JULY 25, 2025, LETTER

TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant, Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. a/k/a Mazda Motor of America, Inc., respectfully responds to the Court’s Letter dated July 25, 2025.

1. Mazda intends to seek review in the Supreme Court of Texas.

The Court asks Mazda to inform this Court in writing, “in light of our recent decision in All Star Imports, Inc. v. Board of the Texas

Department of Motor Vehicles, Cause No. 15-24-00017-CV . . . how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.”

Mazda intends to seek review of this Court’s opinion in No. 15-24-

00017-CV by filing a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. This Court’s judgment in No. 15-24-00017-CV will not become final so long as Mazda’s petition for review remains pending. Sanders v. Boeing Co., 680 S.W.3d 340, 355 (Tex. 2023). Until the appellate mandate issues, the Court may continue to exercise its jurisdiction over this appeal by maintaining the stay that has been in place since September 4, 2024.

2. A continuation of the Court’s stay will promote efficiency, consistency, and fairness.

The Court stayed the proceedings in this appeal until the threshold issue of jurisdiction is resolved. A continuation of the Court’s stay will further the interests of efficiency, consistency, and fairness.

In its motion for consolidation of the two appeals and for a stay of the Court’s consideration of the merits, World Car North argued:

Consolidation will conserve the resources of the parties and the Court by ensuring that the parties are not briefing—and the Court is not addressing—duplicative issues in multiple causes.

World Car North’s Motion to Consolidate Appeals, Stay All Proceedings on the Merits, and Set Briefing Schedule on Jurisdictional Issue, filed

March 24, 2024, at 6. A continuation of the Court’s stay will further conserve the resources of the parties and the judicial system until the Court’s mandate issues.

World Car North further argued:

Because the Court will inevitably have to address the question of its jurisdiction—and because that question could be determinative of this entire proceeding—it is far more efficient for the Court to address the jurisdictional issue first (as the trial court did) and suspend any proceedings relating to the merits until that threshold issue is resolved.

Id at 9 (emphasis added). The threshold issue of jurisdiction has not yet been finally resolved. A continuation of the Court’s stay until that threshold issue is finally resolved will promote efficiency, consistency, and fairness.

Therefore, Mazda’s answer to the question posed in the Court’s letter is that the Court may exercise its jurisdiction over this appeal by maintaining the stay it has already ordered in this appeal until the Court’s mandate issues.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court should maintain its stay until the threshold issue is finally resolved with the issuance of the appellate mandate.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brit T. Brown

Brit T. Brown

brit.brown@akerman.com

Benjamin A. Escobar

ben.escobar@akerman.com

AKERMAN LLP

1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 623-0887 Facsimile: (713) 960-1527

Jeff Nobles

Texas Bar No. 15053050

jeff.nobles@jeffnobleslaw.com JEFF NOBLES LAW PLLC

232 Diamondback Drive

Georgetown, Texas 78628

737-304-1625 (Telephone)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT MAZDA MOTOR OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. A/K/A MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 5, 2025, a true and correct copy of this Motion was served on the following counsel of record via electronic mail.

Jeffrey L. Oldham Kathy Johnson jeff.oldham@bracewell.com Office of the Attorney General Bracewell, LLP Administrative Law Division 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Houston, Texas 77002 Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Jarod R. Stewart Counsel for Appellee Steptoe LLP Board of The Texas Department of 717 Texas Avenue Motor Vehicles Houston, Texas 77002

Counsel for Appellee All Star Imports, Inc. d/b/a World Car Mazda North

/s/ Jeff Nobles

Jeff Nobles

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.

Envelope ID: 103997854 Filing Code Description: Other Document Filing Description: Notice of Change of Firm and Address Status as of 8/5/2025 2:39 PM CST

Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Benjamin AEscobar benjamin.escobar@akerman.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Brit T.Brown brit.brown@akerman.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Neila Olvera neila.olvera@akerman.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jeffery Nobles 15053050 jeff.nobles@gmail.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jeffrey Oldham 24051132 joldham@jw.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Walter Simons 24098429 walter.simons@bracewell.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jarod Stewart 24066147 jstewart@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Austin Kreitz 24102044 akreitz@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Katherine Johnson 24126964 kathy.johnson@oag.texas.gov 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Christian Young christian.young@oag.texas.gov 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Kathy Johnson Kathy.Johnson@oag.texas.gov 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Terri Patton terri.patton@bracewell.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Christina Ramos cramos@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Sallie Woodell swoodell@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jeff Nobles jeff.nobles@jeffnobleslaw.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT

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

ACCEPTED

15-24-00017-CV

FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/5/2025 2:33 PM

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

NO. 15-24-00039-CV CLERK FILED IN

15th COURT OF APPEALS

IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

MAZDA MOTOR OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. A/K/A MAZDA MOTOR ClerkOF AMERICA, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

ALL STAR IMPORTS, INC. D/B/A WORLD CAR MAZDA NORTH and BOARD OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES,

Appellees.

On Appeal from the 279th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, Cause No. D-I-GN-23-005034

MAZDA’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S JULY 25, 2025, LETTER

TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Appellant, Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. a/k/a Mazda Motor of America, Inc., respectfully responds to the Court’s Letter dated July 25, 2025.

1. Mazda intends to seek review in the Supreme Court of Texas.

The Court asks Mazda to inform this Court in writing, “in light of our recent decision in All Star Imports, Inc. v. Board of the Texas

Department of Motor Vehicles, Cause No. 15-24-00017-CV . . . how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this appeal.”

Mazda intends to seek review of this Court’s opinion in No. 15-24-

00017-CV by filing a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. This Court’s judgment in No. 15-24-00017-CV will not become final so long as Mazda’s petition for review remains pending. Sanders v. Boeing Co., 680 S.W.3d 340, 355 (Tex. 2023). Until the appellate mandate issues, the Court may continue to exercise its jurisdiction over this appeal by maintaining the stay that has been in place since September 4, 2024.

2. A continuation of the Court’s stay will promote efficiency, consistency, and fairness.

The Court stayed the proceedings in this appeal until the threshold issue of jurisdiction is resolved. A continuation of the Court’s stay will further the interests of efficiency, consistency, and fairness.

In its motion for consolidation of the two appeals and for a stay of the Court’s consideration of the merits, World Car North argued:

Consolidation will conserve the resources of the parties and the Court by ensuring that the parties are not briefing—and the Court is not addressing—duplicative issues in multiple causes.

World Car North’s Motion to Consolidate Appeals, Stay All Proceedings on the Merits, and Set Briefing Schedule on Jurisdictional Issue, filed

March 24, 2024, at 6. A continuation of the Court’s stay will further conserve the resources of the parties and the judicial system until the Court’s mandate issues.

World Car North further argued:

Because the Court will inevitably have to address the question of its jurisdiction—and because that question could be determinative of this entire proceeding—it is far more efficient for the Court to address the jurisdictional issue first (as the trial court did) and suspend any proceedings relating to the merits until that threshold issue is resolved.

Id at 9 (emphasis added). The threshold issue of jurisdiction has not yet been finally resolved. A continuation of the Court’s stay until that threshold issue is finally resolved will promote efficiency, consistency, and fairness.

Therefore, Mazda’s answer to the question posed in the Court’s letter is that the Court may exercise its jurisdiction over this appeal by maintaining the stay it has already ordered in this appeal until the Court’s mandate issues.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Court should maintain its stay until the threshold issue is finally resolved with the issuance of the appellate mandate.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brit T. Brown

Brit T. Brown

brit.brown@akerman.com

Benjamin A. Escobar

ben.escobar@akerman.com

AKERMAN LLP

1300 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2300 Houston, Texas 77056

Telephone: (713) 623-0887 Facsimile: (713) 960-1527

Jeff Nobles

Texas Bar No. 15053050

jeff.nobles@jeffnobleslaw.com JEFF NOBLES LAW PLLC

232 Diamondback Drive

Georgetown, Texas 78628

737-304-1625 (Telephone)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT MAZDA MOTOR OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. A/K/A MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC.,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 5, 2025, a true and correct copy of this Motion was served on the following counsel of record via electronic mail.

Jeffrey L. Oldham Kathy Johnson jeff.oldham@bracewell.com Office of the Attorney General Bracewell, LLP Administrative Law Division 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Houston, Texas 77002 Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Jarod R. Stewart Counsel for Appellee Steptoe LLP Board of The Texas Department of 717 Texas Avenue Motor Vehicles Houston, Texas 77002

Counsel for Appellee All Star Imports, Inc. d/b/a World Car Mazda North

/s/ Jeff Nobles

Jeff Nobles

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.

Envelope ID: 103997854 Filing Code Description: Other Document Filing Description: Notice of Change of Firm and Address Status as of 8/5/2025 2:39 PM CST

Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Benjamin AEscobar benjamin.escobar@akerman.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Brit T.Brown brit.brown@akerman.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Neila Olvera neila.olvera@akerman.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jeffery Nobles 15053050 jeff.nobles@gmail.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jeffrey Oldham 24051132 joldham@jw.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Walter Simons 24098429 walter.simons@bracewell.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jarod Stewart 24066147 jstewart@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Austin Kreitz 24102044 akreitz@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Katherine Johnson 24126964 kathy.johnson@oag.texas.gov 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Christian Young christian.young@oag.texas.gov 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Kathy Johnson Kathy.Johnson@oag.texas.gov 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Terri Patton terri.patton@bracewell.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Christina Ramos cramos@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Sallie Woodell swoodell@steptoe.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT Jeff Nobles jeff.nobles@jeffnobleslaw.com 8/5/2025 2:33:05 PM SENT

Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. A/K/A Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. All Star Imports, Inc. D/B/A World Car Mazda North and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Pincite

Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. A/K/A Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. All Star Imports, Inc. D/B/A World Car Mazda North and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles (Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. A/K/A Mazda Motor of America, Inc. v. All Star Imports, Inc. D/B/A World Car Mazda North and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.