CourtListener 10655550

Full text

ACCEPTED
15-25-00136-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/15/2025 1:44 PM
NO. 15-25-00136-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS

In the Fifteenth Court of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS
8/15/2025 1:44:07 PM

Austin, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

IN RE SILVER STAR PROPERTIES REIT, INC., et al.

Relators.

Original Proceeding from the Texas Business Court—Eighth Division
Business Court Cause No. 25-BC08B-0016

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY

TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT:

Real Parties in Interest/Defendants BSPRT CRE Finance, LLC, FBRED BDC

Finance, LLC, and BSPRT CS Loan, LLC (“BSP” or “Real Parties”) oppose the

Emergency Motion For Stay (“Motion”) filed by Relators/Plaintiffs Silver Star

Properties REIT, Inc., Silver Star CRE, LLC, Silver Star CRE II, LLC, and Silver

Star Delray, LLC (“Silver Star” or “Relators”) because it is procedurally defective

and inequitably prejudicial to BSP. This Court should deny Silver Star’s Motion.

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 1 OF 11
I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

This is an appeal from an interlocutory order denying Silver Star’s Motion for

Expedited Remand challenging the Business Court’s jurisdiction to preside over the

instant matter. (1 App. at 1-2). The Business Court’s order was “without prejudice

to Silver Star’s right to file a renewed motion to remand under a standard briefing

schedule.” (Id.) (emphasis added).

Silver Star sought an expedited remand, which is an extraordinary remedy

only appropriate where the business court is satisfied there is no colorable basis for

jurisdiction. (1 App. at 2). The business court found that by Silver Star’s own

allegations, it was far from clear that jurisdiction was lacking and that substantial

questions warranted full briefing. (Id.).

This dispute involves a total of $193,280,000.00 across three separate loans:

the Exit Facility, the Walgreens Loan, and the Delray Loan and whether Silver Star

has adequately complied with the terms of those loans and whether actions taken by

BSP were proper and lawful. (3 App. at 1-27). Importantly, Silver Star’s core

complaints involve the Walgreens Loan.

On July 14, 2025, the 17th District Court for Tarrant County (as visiting Judge

for the 48th District Court) denied Silver Star’s initial attempt at an Emergency

Temporary Restraining Order. (4 App. at 1).

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 2 OF 11
On August 1, Silver Star filed its First Amended Petition and again sought an

emergency temporary restraining order, on essentially the same basis as had been

previously denied.

On August 4, the 48th District Court for Tarrant County, Texas heard Silver

Star’s emergency request for temporary relief and this time partially granted the

requested relief, entering a Temporary Restraining Order that was to expire on

August 18. (7 App. at 1).

On August 8, BSP timely filed its Notice of Removal to the Business Court

of Texas. (10 App. at 1-5).

On August 11, without first requesting from BSP a meet and confer as is

required by Section 5(f) of the BCLR, Silver Star filed its Second Amended Petition

and also its Motion for Expedited Remand seeking for the Business Court to send

this matter back to the 48th District Court. The same day, the Business Court denied

the requested expedited remand, without prejudice, observing that such relief is an

“extraordinary remedy, appropriate—if ever—only where the Court is satisfied there

is no colorable basis for jurisdiction. That is not the case here.” (1 App. at 2).

On August 12, Silver Star agreed to set the Second Amended Application for

Temporary Injunction for hearing on August 20 before the Texas Business Court. (8

App. at 1).

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 3 OF 11
And now on August 14, Silver Star files the instant Petition for Writ of

Mandamus and seeks an “emergency” stay on its own request for injunctive relief

which itself is predicated on avoiding some alleged emergent harm. In other words,

Silver Star is representing to the trial court imminent irreparable harm exists needing

immediate relief while simultaneously requesting this Court stay the very relief they

seek to remedy the alleged emergency. These positions are obviously contradictory

and exposes the lack of merit for the relief sought by Silver Star in the first place.

Silver Star’s litigation tactics are increasingly chaotic and self-contradicting.

As a preliminary matter, Silver Star’s request to stay its own injunction proceedings

is indicative of the fact that there really is no emergent and irreparable harm to be

addressed. A party making such allegations truthfully does not seek to stay its own

proceedings on the eve of trail.

Moreover, the Motion and Petition for Writ of Mandamus themselves are

procedurally improper. Silver Star did not confer in any real sense of the word with

BSP. On August 15, Counsel for Relator sent an email to only Jacob Sparks (one of

three attorneys appearing) at 9:45 a.m. See Affidavit of Brent T. Buyse (“Buyse

Aff.”) at ¶ 6-9; see also Ex. 1. Mr. Sparks has an automated out-of-office response

indicating his inaccessibility. Id. at ¶ 7. Despite this automated response, and without

attempting to reach any other attorney, Silver Star filed the instant Motion just 45

minutes later. Id. at ¶ 8-9. Consistent with Silver Star’s pattern of disregarding

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 4 OF 11
proper procedure, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus improperly attempts to appeal

the Business Court’s order denying their expedited motion for remand while

ignoring the Business Court’s instruction that Silver Star was permitted to re-file the

same motion but under a standard briefing scheduling. There is no basis for a stay,

and the Motion should be denied.

II. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

Although the Court may grant temporary relief pending its determination of

an original proceeding under the authority of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

52.10(b), the Court should not do so in this case.

To be afforded a stay, the party seeking relief must timely pursue its rights in

both the trial court and the court of appeals. In re LCS SP, LLC, 640 S.W.3d 848,

856 n.39 (Tex. 2022). The Court should refuse to issue a stay because Silver Star

failed to pursue its rights in the Business Court by seeking remand under a standard

briefing schedule, which the Business Court specifically invited them to do in its

order (“[T]he court denies the Motion without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to file

a renewed motion for remand under a standard briefing schedule.”) (1 App. at 2)

(emphasis in original). Silver Star never bothered to do so.

In order to circumvent the Business Court’s order, Silver Star petitions this

Court for a Writ of Mandamus. But mandamus is meant for circumstances

“involving manifest and urgent necessity and not for grievances that may be

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 5 OF 11
addressed by other remedies.” In re Murrin Bros. 1885, Ltd., 603 S.W.3d 53, 57

(Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding). Such circumstance does not exist here. Silver Star’s

most immediate remedy is to follow the Business Court’s order by renewing the

motion for remand under a standard briefing schedule. Silver Star elected not do so.

Moreover, a stay pending appeal is a creature of equity, and a court asked to

issue one may take into account other case-specific equitable considerations that

bear on its exercise of discretion. In re State, 711 S.W.3d 641, 645–46 (Tex. 2024);

see also In re Gamble, 71 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. 2002) (noting that courts exercising

equity jurisdiction must “among other things, balance competing equities”). The

applicant for a stay pending appeal should be expected to show that he will suffer

irreparable harm if relief is not granted. Id. Courts must likewise consider the harm

that other parties or the public will suffer if relief is granted—as well as any potential

injury to non-parties caused by granting or denying relief. Id. The equitable

balancing of these harms is a required aspect of a court's effort to preserve the

parties’ rights pending appeal. Id. (citing Huynh v. Blanchard, 694 S.W.3d 648, 687-

90 (Tex. June 7, 2024)).

Silver Star did not meet this burden. Silver Star is seeking emergency

equitable relief to address some purported emergent irreparable harm that clearly

does not exist. There is no emergency; Silver Star could still avail itself of a

jurisdictional challenge, but it must do so by filing a renewed motion before the

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 6 OF 11
Business Court upon a standard briefing schedule. To the contrary, requiring Silver

Star to proceed on its application for injunctive relief on the date agreed to by Silver

Star could not be prejudicial to Silver Star. Indeed, if Silver Star does not want its

application for injunction to be heard, it can achieve this result by simply

withdrawing its application or taking down its hearing.

Separately, staying this action will undoubtedly harm BSP. Silver Star has

made a number of spurious claims against BSP that need to be defended. BSP has

expended substantial amount of time and resources preparing for the temporary

injunction hearing, which is now on its second setting for August 20, in order to

demonstrate to the Business Court that BSP at all times acted in compliance with its

rights under the parties’ contracts. See Buyse Aff. at ¶ 3. BSP’s president and head

of real estate has cleared his day on August 20 to travel to Fort Worth, Texas from

out of state and appear in person before the Business Court and defend these

allegations. Id. at ¶ 4. BSP takes seriously the allegations leveled by Silver Star and

is making available a high-level executive to testify in person. Staying the hearing

in Business Court at this late date disregards the resources that BSP has put into

responding to Silver Star’s purported emergent relief and will further disrupt the

calendars and resources of individuals and entities who have taken the allegations

seriously and devoted significant time to their response. Id. at ¶ 5.

Moreover, while BSP’s witness has made himself available to testify on

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 7 OF 11
August 20, he is leaving the country on August 22 and not returning until after

September 2. Id. at ¶ 4. If the relief sought by Silver Star is truly emergent and

necessary to avoid irreparable harm, it must be heard as scheduled on August 20.

Furthermore, the primary loan in dispute, the Walgreens Loan, matured as of

August 9. (3 App. at 9; 4 App. at 13). As a result, there can be no dispute that Silver

Star is in default of its obligations under the Walgreens Loan, affording BSP all

remedies under its loan documents, including foreclosure. BSP has commenced the

foreclosure process of the collateral for the Walgreens Loan, having noticed and

posted foreclosure of five office properties in Texas for September 2, and is in

process of foreclosing the remaining sixteen Walgreens properties for foreclosure in

accordance with the laws of their respective states. Any harm that Silver Star has

alleged with respect to these properties is now moot, as the properties will shortly

be foreclosed unless Silver Star repays the matured Walgreens Loan in full.

Moreover, in accordance with the Temporary Restraining Order, as of the date

hereof, BSP has disbursed to Silver Star a total of $1,102,489.38 to avoid alleged

immediate and irreparable harm to Silver Star. Incredibly, as of today, Silver Star

has reported spending a total of only $14,122.30. Silver Star remains in possession

of over $1 million of cash obtained under a loan now post-maturity, while at the

same time seeking to stay further proceedings.

Silver Star’s position is untenable, and if granted, the result would be grossly

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 8 OF 11
inequitable. Silver Star’s behavior belies its prior declarations of emergency. The

hearing set for August 20, in which BSP has invested significant resources to prepare

and make witnesses available, should proceed as scheduled. The Motion should be

denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Not only did Relators fail to exercise their rights to appropriately challenge

the Business Court’s jurisdiction by filing a motion upon a standard briefing

schedule with the Business Court, Relators also fail to carry their burden and are

unable to show irreparable harm. The balance of equity for Silver Star’s requested

stay would result in significant prejudice and unjustifiable harm to BSP.

Silver Star’s litigation tactics are increasingly more erratic and

counterproductive. Now that the primary loan at issue has matured, Silver Star’s

substantive position is moot. In the interests of justice, the Business Court should

hear the application as noticed and Silver Star should be required to follow the

instructions of the Business Court by filing a challenge to removal under a standard

briefing schedule. There is absolutely no emergency or threat of irreparable harm.

There is only improper procedural gamesmanship by Silver Star. This Court should

deny Silver Star’s request for a stay.

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 9 OF 11
IV. PRAYER

For these reasons, Real Parties in Interest asks the Court to deny Relators’

Motion for Emergency Stay. In the alternative, Real Parties in Interest asks the Court

to require Relators to post a bond in the amount of $1,500,000, which is the

maximum amount that BSP was ordered to disburse to Silver Star upon its request

under the Temporary Restraining Order, as a condition of granting the Motion for

Emergency Stay.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Brent Buyse
JACOB SPARKS
Texas Bar No. 24066126
Email: Jacob.Sparks@NelsonMullins.com
BRENT T. BUYSE
Texas Bar No. 24105567
Email: Brent.Buyse@NelsonMullins.com
XENNA K. DAVIS
Texas Bar No. 24132037
Email: Xenna.Davis@NelsonMullins.com
NELSON MULLINS
RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
5830 Granite Parkway, Suite 1000
Plano, Texas 75024
Tel: (469) 484-4962
Fax: (469) 828-7217

Counsel for Real Parties in Interest
BSPRT CRE Finance LLC, FBRED BDC
Finance LLC, and BSPRT CS Loan LLC

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 10 OF 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 15, 2025, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing instrument has been served upon the following counsel of record via
electronic service:

Walter L. Taylor Hon. Brian Stagner
Texas Bar No. 19727030 Judge Presiding
TAYLOR LAW FIRM TEXAS BUSINESS COURT
6630 Colleyville Blvd., Suite 200 Eighth Division
Colleyville, Texas 76034 1515 Commerce St., Suite 170
Tel.: (817) 770-4343 Fort Worth, Texas 76102
Tel.: (512) 474-6600 Tel.: (817) 618-9028
Fax: (512) 474-6700 Email: BCDivision8B@txcourts.gov
Email:taylorlawfirmdfw@gmail.com
Respondent
Counsel for Relators

/s/ Brent Buyse
BRENT T. BUYSE

OPPOSITION TO RELATORS’ MOTION FOR EMERGENCY STAY PAGE 11 OF 11
Exhibit 1
Brent Buyse

From: Walt Taylor <taylorlawfirmdfw@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 09:45
To: Jacob Sparks
Subject: Re: Petition for Writ of Mandamus; Fifteenth Court of Appeals

External Source/Sender notice
Report Suspicious
Use caution responding or clicking links/attachments.

Jacob,

Do you agree to or oppose a stay of the proceedings in the business court pending the Fifteenth Court of
Appeals' reveiw of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus?

I should be filing by 10:30-11, so if you could let me know by then I'd surely be grateful.

Thanks,
Walt

___________________________________

Walter L. Taylor

Taylor Law Firm

6630 Colleyville Blvd., Ste. 200

Colleyville, Texas 76034

P: (817) 770-4343

P: (512) 474-6600

F: (512) 474-6700

taylorlawfirmdfw@gmail.com

taylorlawfirmatx@gmail.com

Also Of Counsel With:

1
Hart Law Firm, PLLC

WTaylor@thehartlawfirm.com

www.thehartlawfirm.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
"The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or
privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their
agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this
message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or
storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.”

On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 1:43 PM Walt Taylor <taylorlawfirmdfw@gmail.com> wrote:
Jacob,

FYI - I've filed the attached Petition for a Writ of Mandamus at the Fifteenth Court on the jurisdictional
issue.

Just as a heads up, either this evening or tomorrow morning I'll be filing an emergency motion to stay the
August 20, 2025, hearing pending the Fifteenth Court of Appeals' ruling on the Petition.

Best regards,
Walt

___________________________________

Walter L. Taylor

Taylor Law Firm

6630 Colleyville Blvd., Ste. 200

Colleyville, Texas 76034

P: (817) 770-4343

2
P: (512) 474-6600

F: (512) 474-6700

taylorlawfirmdfw@gmail.com

taylorlawfirmatx@gmail.com

Also Of Counsel With:

Hart Law Firm, PLLC

WTaylor@thehartlawfirm.com

www.thehartlawfirm.com

3
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.

Docketing DFW on behalf of Brent Buyse
Bar No. 24105567
docketing.dfw@nelsonmullins.com
Envelope ID: 104439585
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: Opposition to Relators' Motion for Emergency Stay
Status as of 8/15/2025 1:46 PM CST

Associated Case Party: Silver Star Properties REIT, Inc.