### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-011-00029- CV

NNN M et C enter 10-1, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-2, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-3, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-4, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-5, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-6, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-7, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-8, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-9, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-10, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-11, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-13, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-14, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-15, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-16, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-17, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-18, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-19, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-20, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-21, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-22, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-23, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-24, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-25, LLC;

NNN M et C enter 10-26, LLC; NNN M et C enter 10-27, LLC; and NNN M et C enter 10-28, LLC, Appellan ts

v. BACM 2005-3 M et C enter Of fi ce, LLC; M ark L. Pat ter son; Jeff rey J. Z issa; R. Terr y Miller; E. Joe Berge r, III; John A. Bain ; Mic hael C. Elrod; Beverly A. Houston;

Juani ta Strickland; Jani e Mucha; LNR P artner s, LLC; and Barclays Capital Real Estate , Inc., Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 98TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-1 0-0 0449 8, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appea l f

rom the denial of a temporar y injunction to preve nt a fore closure of appellants’ interests in an office building. The parties advise that althoug h the proper ty was sold
at fore closure on Fe bruar y 1, 2011, one appellant, NNN Met Center 1 0 -2 5 , L L C had filed for bankruptc y protec tion in the United States Ba nkruptcy Court for the Norther n District of California

s hortly befor e the sale. Citi ng events in the bankruptc y proce eding s, appellants have filed amotion to abate this appea l until November 1, 2011. They attach an order from the bankruptc y court

ref lecting , among other things, that court’s vie w that an a utomatic stay

was in ef fec t at the time of the fore closure sale and that it has extended the autom atic stay until November 1 to aff ord the 1 parties an opportunity to resolve the underly ing dispute. I n light of the automatic stay , we abate this
appea l and dismiss appellants’ motion as moot. See Tex. R. App. P . 8.

I n addition to opposing abate ment, appellee s have moved to dismis s the appea l as moot, citing the Feb ru ar y 1 fo re cl osure sale. I n light of the bankruptc y stay , we may not rule on appellee s’ m otion to dismiss

. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.2; Continental Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp. , 751 S.W .2d 499, 501 (Tex. 1988) (state- court action taken during bankruptc y stay is void).

Any party may file a motion to reinstate the appea l if permitted by fede ral law or the bankruptc y court. See Tex R. App. P. 8.3. I t is the parties’ responsibility to notify the Court as soon as possible if an e vent occ urs that would allow re instatement. Id. Fa ilure to notify this Court of a lift of the automatic stay or the conclusion of the bankruptc y proce eding may result in dismiss al of the ca se for

want of pr osecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b).

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose
Ba nkruptcy Filed: May

27, 2011

See 11 U.S.C. § 362. 1 2