Morris Bart, LLC

INRE:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MMA LAW FIRM, PLLC
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-5013
ADVERSARY PRO. NO. 24-3127
ORDER
Pending before this Court is Appellant Morris Bart, LLC 's ("Morris Bart") Emergency
Motion for Stay Pending Review of Appeal (Doc. No. 4). Appellee MMA Law Firm, PLLC
("MMA") filed a response. (Doc. No. 13). In this civil action (of the many before this Court),
Morris Bart filed a Notice of Appeal to challenge the Bankruptcy Court's Orders Setting In-Person
Hearing (Doc. Nos. 1-1) (the "Show Cause Orders") related to the alleged violation of the
Bankruptcy Court's Preliminary Injunction in Sherry Fo skey, et al. v. Am erican Modern Property
and Casualty Insurance Company, No. 23-5316, in the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Foskey
case" ). The Show Cause Orders set an evidentiary hearing to require Morris Bart to "show cause
why they should not be held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned for violating this Court's
Injunction Order entered on July 15, 2024 relating to the Ex Parle Order issued by Magistrate
Judge Michael North." (Doc. No. 1-1). The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled the contempt hearing
for January 14 , 2026. (Doc. No. 1-2). Morris Bart requests this Court to stay the Show Cause
Orders and the contempt hearing. The Emergency Motion is GRANTED, and the Show Cause
Orders and the hearing are hereby stayed until further instruction from this Court.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 03, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05013 Document 15 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

This Court held an in-person hearing on December 2, 2025 to discuss most of the motions
pending between Morris Bart and MMA, including the pending issues related to the Foskey case. 1
Amidst the several appeals and motions pending before this Court out of this adversary proceeding,
the Court identified that one of the central issues in this litigation is whether MMA waived its right
to collect attorneys' fees or costs for every case pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana prior
to filing for bankruptcy. On the one hand, Morris Bart argues that before the automatic bankruptcy
stay was ever initiated, MMA represented to courts in the Eastern District of Louisiana that it
waived any right to collect any fees or costs in any pending case in the Eastern District of
Louisiana. Morris Bart argues that Magistrate Judge North, among other Eastern District judges,
relied on MMA's express waiver to the court and held that "MMA has knowingly and completely
waived its rights to intervene or otherwise seek to recover fees and/or costs in this or any other
lawsuit pending in the District." Ric ks v. Imperial Fire & Ca s. Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1750738, at * 1
(E.D. La. Apr. 5, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 1740172 (E.D. La. Apr.
23 , 2024). On the other hand, MMA argues that while the Ricks order (as well as at least three
other post-bankruptcy orders) prevents MMA from intervening in any case to collect attorneys '
fees or costs, the order does not prevent MMA from seeking fees directly from other law firms like
Morris Bart.
The Court finds the question of the pre-petition waiver of any attorneys ' fees and costs in
the Eastern District of Louisiana to be of critical importance to the overall resolution of this
litigation, including whether Morris Bart violated the Bankruptcy Court's Preliminary Injunction
1 At the hearing, the Court also heard oral argument related to certain discovery issues related to
the Fo skey case. Those issues arise out of a different cause number, In re MMA Law Firm, P LLC,
No. 4:25-CV-5576. In that case, Morris Bart appealed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling on several
requests for production. The Court entered a separate order in that case and adopts those rulings
herein.
2
Case 4:25-cv-05013 Document 15 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

and/or bankruptcy stay. While the Bankruptcy Court has ruled that certain orders emanating from
the Eastern District of Louisiana are not binding on it, In re MMA Law Firm, PLLC, 673 B.R. 174,
204 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2025), the Court also notes that there is an existing en bane order
in the Eastern District of Louisiana that finds that the Bankruptcy Court injunction "is inapplicable
to cases pending in this District." In re Hurricane Ida Claims, Order Regarding Settlement of
Former MMA Cases (Dec. 19, 2024). 2 Thus, the existing situation seemingly pits the order of one
court against the order of another with the lawyers perhaps caught in the middle. The resolution of
this issue is of great importance to the ongoing matters pending both in the Bankruptcy Court and
those in this Court, as well as to the overall outcome of a significant number of the underlying
cases. The Court hereby GRANTS Morris Bart's motion to stay the Show Cause Orders and any
hearing on potential claims of contempt and all specifically related discovery until a further order
of this Court.
It is so ordered.
Signed on this the 	g 1 ~ay of December 2025.
Andrew S. Hanen
United States District Judge
2 	A 	copy 	of 	this 	order, 	which 	is 	not 	available 	on 	Westlaw, 	can 	be 	found 	at
laed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdfs/Order MMA Opinions.pdf.
3
Case 4:25-cv-05013 Document 15 Filed on 12/03/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3