Moore v. Copper Property CTL Pass Through Trust et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ERIC LYNDELL MOORE,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-04246
COPPER PROPERTY CTL PASS
THROUGH TRUST, et al.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
TO THE UNITED STATES DISRICT COURT
Regarding ECF No. 42
Pending before the Court is a single matter self-styled as “Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion
For Status Conference Via Video Conference”1 (the “Motion”) filed on December 12, 2025 by
Eric Lyndell Moore (“Plaintiff”). On December 18, 2025, and with the consent of both Plaintiff
and Copper Property CTL Pass Through Trust, et al., the Honorable Chief United States District
Judge Alia Moses issued her order referring the Motion to the instant Court to hold a status
conference and issue a report and recommendation (“Order of Referral”).2 On the same date, this
court issued an order scheduling a status conference for Friday December 19, 2025 at 1:30 p.m.
central standard time.3 After a careful review of the pleadings and argument by the parties, the
Court issues this instant Report and Recommendation.
I. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
1 ECF No. 42.
2 ECF No. 43.
3 ECF No. 44.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04246 Document 63 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

The authority for bankruptcy courts to issue reports and recommendations derives from 28
U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), which provides that in non-core proceedings related to bankruptcy cases, “the
bankruptcy judge shall submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court,
and any final order or judgment shall be entered by the district judge after considering the
bankruptcy judge's proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters
to which any party has timely and specifically objected.”4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), “[a]
bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related
to a case under title 11.”
This lawsuit was brought by non-debtor, Plaintiff, against non-debtors, Copper Property
CTL Pass Through Trust (the “Copper Trust”); GLAS USA LLC; and Onyx Partners, LLC
(“Defendants”) for breach of a certain trust agreement dated January 30, 2021 (the “Trust
Agreement”) that governs the Copper Trust.5 Therefore, this case is not a core proceeding.6
However, because the Trust Agreement was created pursuant to the Plan of Reorganization7
confirmed in the Chapter 11 Case of J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-20182, this
proceeding is “otherwise related to a case under title 11.”8 This instant case is pending before Chief
United States District Judge Alias Moses pursuant to Southern District of Texas General Order
2023-21.9 All parties have consented to referring the Motion to this Court to issue a report and
4 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1); See also Bankruptcy Rule 9033.
5 ECF No. 1.
6 In re Efficient Sols., Inc, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18794, at *14 (E.D. La. Dec. 20, 2000) (“These are state law
claims between nondebtors, which do not involve substantive rights conferred by title 11 or proceedings that could
only arise in a bankruptcy case. They all fall under 28 U.S.C. Section 157(c)(1), which authorizes bankruptcy
courts to hear non-core ‘related’ proceedings and to submit findings and conclusions to the district court for de novo
review.”); Hous. Baseball Partners LLC v. Comcast Corp. (In re Hous. Reg'l Sports Network, L.P.), 514 B.R. 211,
216 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2014).
7 Bankr. Case No. 20-20182, ECF No. 2162.
8 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1).
9 Sept. 9, 2025 Min. Entry.
Case 4:25-cv-04246 Document 63 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

recommendation.10 Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction to enter this Report and
Recommendation.
II. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
Plaintiff asserts that immediate judicial attention is required because Defendants are
scheduled to close the sale of Copper Property CTL Pass-Through Trust’s final real estate assets—
which are the subject of this litigation—for $935 million on December 22, 2025.11 Of these
proceeds, Plaintiff and proposed intervenor Barnett Capital are allegedly owed $330 million.12
Plaintiff asserts that Defendants may immediately distribute the proceeds, which will permanently
dissipate the res of this litigation before the Court has ruled on Defendants’ pending Motion to
Dismiss.
III. RECOMMENDATION
In his motion, Plaintiff does not request injunctive or other affirmative relief. Instead,
through the Motion, Plaintiff seeks a status conference to allow the Court to: (1) assess the impact
of Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss on the Court’s jurisdiction; (2) clarify whether
Defendants intend to proceed with distributions notwithstanding unresolved claims; (3) determine
whether narrowly tailored measures may be warranted to preserve disputed proceeds; and (4)
ensure transparency and compliance by fiduciaries controlling the res.13
The Court has already granted the only relief requested by Plaintiff by scheduling and
conducting the status conference. In the absence of a pending motion for injunctive or other
10 ECF No. 43.
11 ECF No. 42.
12 ECF No. 42 at 1.
13 ECF No. 42.
Case 4:25-cv-04246 Document 63 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

affirmative relief, any additional action by the Court would be advisory in nature.14 Thus, no
further relief is warranted at this time. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the District Court
take no action at this time.
IV. ORDER
It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas shall enter this Report and Recommendation in the docket of the above-captioned
case and transmit a copy of the Report and Recommendation to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9033.
SIGNED December 19, 2025
________________________________
Eduardo V. Rodriguez
Chief United States Bankruptcy Judge
14 See Franchise Servs. of N. Am. v. United States Trs. (In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am.), 891 F.3d 198, 205 (5th
Cir. 2018) (“[T]he oldest and most consistent thread in the federal law of justiciability is that the federal courts will
not give advisory opinions.”).
Case 4:25-cv-04246 Document 63 Filed 01/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4