MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 1 OF 8

Phillip Lamberson - Texas Bar No. 00794134

Jason A. Enright - Texas Bar No. 24087475

WINSTEAD PC

500 Winstead Building 

2728 N. Harwood Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 745-5400

Facsimile: (214) 745-5390

plamberson@winstead.com

jenright@winstead.com

ATTORNEYS FOR CHARLES AND

KATHLEEN MASON

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re: §

§ Case No. 23-30771-sgj7

CARL GERARD DORVIL,

Debtor.

§

§

§

Chapter 7

OBJECTION TO EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

THE AUTOMATIC STAY

TO THE HONORABLE STACEY G. C. JERNIGAN, CHIEF UNITED STATES 

BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Charles and Kathleen Mason (the "Masons"), creditors in the above-captioned bankruptcy 

case (the "Bankruptcy Case") of Carl Gerard Dorvil (the "Debtor"), file this objection (this 

"Objection") to the Emergency Motion of Carl Gerard Dorvil for Relief from the Automatic Stay 

[Docket No. 48] (the "Lift Stay Motion") and in support thereof, respectfully state as follows:

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1

1. On May 2, 2023, this Court temporarily lifted the automatic stay for 90 days to 

allow for completion of an ongoing trial and for a jury verdict and judgment to be rendered in the 

State Court Litigation in order to liquidate the Masons' claim against the Debtor. Final Judgment 

1 Certain capitalized terms used in the Preliminary Statement are defined later in this Objection. 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 8
MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 2 OF 8

in the State Court Litigation was entered on July 31, 2023, and, pursuant to this Court's order, the 

automatic stay was reimposed on August 1, 2023.

2. The Masons thereafter filed their proof of claim [Claim No. 4] (the "Proof of 

Claim"), which used the Final Judgment to liquidate their claim but otherwise submitted all issues 

related to such claim to this Court.

3. Despite reimposition of the automatic stay, as well as this Court's order specifically 

prohibiting actions taken to allow for "a new trial or empaneling of a new jury in the State Court 

Litigation," the Debtor nonetheless filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict and to modify the judgment. By filing these Motions and attempting 

to continue the State Court Litigation, the Debtor clearly violated section 362(a)(1) of the 

Bankruptcy Code. Soon after, the Masons filed their Motion of Charles and Kathleen Mason to 

Enforce the Automatic Stay and for Related Relief [Docket No. 47] (the "Motion to Enforce"), 

which is attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference.2 The Debtor then filed the 

Lift Stay Motion seeking relief from the automatic stay so that the Debtor can generally "pursue 

post-judgment litigation in the State Court Case and appeal."

4. Any litigation of the Proof of Claim or, as noted below, the Mason's Discharge 

Action should proceed in this Court. It makes no sense for this Court to abdicate authority and 

control of what are indisputably core bankruptcy proceedings to a state appellate process that could 

take years and, even then, be inconclusive. Likewise, if the Debtor's intent is to litigate the same 

issues both before this Court and in state court, the obvious questions are why would this Court 

allow such duplicative and inefficient litigation and why would a chapter 7 debtor even want it.

2 The Masons did not file the Motion to Enforce as an emergency motion because they do not believe the issues 

presented must be considered on an emergency or expedited basis by the Court.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 8
MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 3 OF 8

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

5. Almost four years before the filing of this Bankruptcy Case, on May 23, 2019, the 

Masons filed suit against Agile Connections, LLC ("Agile") and the Debtor, styled as Charles and 

Kathleen Mason, Plaintiffs. v. Agile Connections, LLC et al., Cause No. DC-19-07426, in the 

162nd Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas (the "State Court Litigation"), asserting causes of 

action against the Debtor for breach of contract, money had and received, conversion and theft, 

fraudulent inducement and fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy in connection with 

certain business loans the Masons made to Agile during 2016. After resetting the trial date 

numerous times, and after numerous delays in the State Court Litigation by the Debtor, trial 

ultimately commenced on April 18, 2023—nearly four years after it was initially filed.

6. On April 20, 2023 (the "Petition Date"), which was the third day of trial (and just 

prior to its conclusion), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7 of the 

Bankruptcy Code, which stayed the State Court Litigation. 

7. On April 25, 2023, the Masons filed the Emergency Motion of Charles and 

Kathleen Mason for Relief from the Automatic Stay and Related Relief [Docket No. 8], in which 

the Masons requested that the Court grant stay relief to allow completion of the trial and a jury 

verdict and judgment to be rendered in the State Court Litigation, which would liquidate the 

Masons' claim in the Bankruptcy Case against the Debtor.

8. After a hearing on the Masons' motion for stay relief, which the Debtor contested, 

the Court entered its Order Granting Emergency Motion of Charles and Kathleen Mason for Relief 

form the Automatic Stay and Related Relief [Docket No. 22] ("Stay Relief Order").

9. In the Stay Relief Order, the Court lifted the automatic stay for a period of 90 days 

from entry of the Stay Relief Order specifically to allow only: "(a) completion of the trial, (b) the 

currently empaneled jury to render a verdict, and (c) the state court to enter judgment (the "Claim");

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 8
MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 4 OF 8

provided, however, that liquidation of the Masons' Claim is without prejudice to the Trustee filing 

an objection in the Bankruptcy Case to the Claim amount at a later date." Stay Relief Order ¶¶ 2, 

5.

10. Further, in the Stay Relief Order, the Court expressly ordered: "For the avoidance 

of doubt, the relief granted by this Order does not provide relief from the automatic stay to allow 

for: . . . (iii) a new trial or empaneling of a new jury in the State Court Litigation." Id. ¶ 4 (emphasis 

in original).

11. The trial re-started on June 5, 2023, and concluded on June 9, 2023.

12. On June 9, 2023, the jury returned its verdict. The jury found the Debtor liable for 

the Masons' claims for money had and received, conversion, theft, fraudulent inducement, fraud 

by misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy, with 

damages in the following amounts: (a) actual damages in the amount of $4,868,346.37; (b) 

statutory damages for theft of $1,000.00; and (c) exemplary damages in the amount of 

$1,000,000.00. The jury also found the Debtor jointly and severally liable for damages awarded 

to the Masons against Agile.

13. On July 14, 2023, the Masons filed their Original Complaint Objecting to 

Dischargeability of a Debt Under U.S.C. § 523, commencing adversary proceeding 23-03063 

against the Debtor (the "Discharge Action"). See Docket 42.

14. On July 31, 2023, the state court entered the Final Judgment (signed July 28, 2023) 

in the State Court Litigation. In the Final Judgment, the state court ordered that the Masons recover 

the actual, statutory, and exemplary damage amounts awarded by the jury, as well as attorneys' 

fees in the amount of $273,155.00, expenses in the amount of $7,515.48, and costs of court.3

3 Pursuant to the Final Judgment, the Debtor is also jointly and severally liable for damages with Agile in the following 

amounts: (a) actual damages in the amount of $2 million; (b) pre-judgment interest at the rate of 14.5%, totaling 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 8
MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 5 OF 8

15. On August 1, 2023, pursuant to the Stay Relief Order, the automatic stay was 

reimposed with respect to the State Court Litigation. See id. ¶ 5.

16. On August 28, 2023, despite the reimposition of the automatic stay, this Court's 

Stay Relief Order specifically forbidding actions taken to allow for "a new trial or empaneling of 

a new jury in the State Court Litigation," and the statutory prohibition under section 362(a)(1) of 

the Bankruptcy Code against the continuation of pre-petition litigation, the Debtor still filed in the 

State Court Litigation: (1) Defendant Carl Dorvil's Motion for New Trial; and (II) Defendant Carl 

Dorvil's Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and to Modify the Judgment (together, 

the "Prohibited Motions"). The Prohibited Motions are attached to the Motion to Enforce as 

Exhibit A and incorporated herein for all purposes.

17. On September 1, 2023, the Masons filed their Motion to Enforce.

18. On September 5, 2023, the Debtor filed his Lift Stay Motion, which effectively 

admitted the Debtor had violated the automatic stay by filing the Prohibited Motions.

III. OBJECTION

19. The filing of a bankruptcy petition "operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of 

. . . the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative or other action or 

proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before commencement of 

the case under [the Bankruptcy Code]." 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). To the extent contested by the 

Debtor, filing and prosecuting the Prohibited Motions or an appeal of the Final Judgment 

violates the automatic stay. The Masons incorporate their Motion to Enforce for this point.

20. The Stay Relief Order reflected this Court's intent that completion of the trial 

already underway in the State Court Litigation be used to liquidate the Masons' claim against the 

$2,816,706.32; (c) statutory damages for theft of $1,000.00; (d) attorneys' fees in the amount of $273,155.00; (e) 

expenses in the amount of $7,515.48; and (f) costs of court.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 8
MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 6 OF 8

Debtor, and then any further proceedings would be in this Court. This is exactly why the Court 

gave the parties a 90-day window to obtain a judgment in the State Court Litigation, and did not 

lift the stay unconditionally. Consistent with that intent, the Masons filed both their Proof of Claim 

and the Discharge Action, both of which the Debtor is free to contest in the Bankruptcy Case. The 

Masons' Proof of Claim and the Masons' Discharge Action are bankruptcy actions that should 

proceed in the Bankruptcy Case. Both the Discharge Action and the Proof of Claim are clearly 

core proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B) and (I). Continuation of the State Court 

Litigation would both significantly delay the Bankruptcy Case and take control of the timing of 

critical estate litigation away from this Court, as appeals of the Final Judgment could take years. 

And it is possible that the result of even a successful appeal is a reformed judgment that has no 

bearing on the Discharge Action or the Proof of Claim already pending in this Court.4 The Debtor 

already successfully delayed trial of the State Court Litigation by almost four years. Further delays 

in the Masons' pursuit of justice against the Debtor should not be allowed or tolerated.

21. If the Debtor's intent is to continue litigating with the Masons both in state court 

and the Bankruptcy Court, the obvious question is why? The Debtor voluntarily filed bankruptcy 

and submitted himself to this Court. Allowing the State Court Litigation to proceed would result 

in duplicative proceedings addressing similar issues. It would be incredibly inefficient and 

expensive to litigate similar issues in two forums, particularly when the only issue the Debtor 

should really care about is the Discharge Action. Presumably, a chapter 7 debtor with allegedly 

minimal assets (as the Debtor purports to be) would try to minimize litigation costs, not use them 

as a cudgel. Interestingly, this Debtor, who pleads poverty in his bankruptcy filings, has somehow 

4 For example, an appellate court may determine that the portion of the judgment that makes the Debtor vicariously 

liable for Agile's debt to the Masons was incorrectly decided, but otherwise maintains the Debtor's direct liability to 

the Mason under the Final Judgment. To be clear, the Masons believe any appeal of the Final Judgment would be 

frivolous, but even a best-case scenario for the Debtor may be a meaningless result for this Court.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 8
MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 7 OF 8

been able to engage four different law firms to represent him in various actions since the 

Bankruptcy Case was filed.5

22. To the extent the Court determines that the state court may consider the Prohibited 

Motions or an appeal, the Masons would request relief from the automatic stay to allow the Masons 

to file responsive pleadings and otherwise defend themselves against the Prohibited Motions or an 

appeal. Here, it would greatly prejudice the Masons if the state court were to consider the merits 

of the Prohibited Motions or an appeal and the Masons could not defend themselves. In such case, 

the Masons would also request that the Court waive the 14-day stay of an order granting this 

Motion, as provided under Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3).

IV. PRAYER

The Masons respectfully request that this Court: (i) deny the Debtor's Lift Stay Motion; (ii) 

to the extent the Court deems necessary, grant the Masons relief from the automatic stay so they 

may file responsive pleadings and otherwise defend themselves against the Prohibited Motions or 

an appeal of the Final Judgment; and (iii) grant the Masons such other and further relief to which 

they may be justly entitled, both at law and in equity.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

5 Guy Harvey Holman PLLC represents the Debtor as bankruptcy counsel; Hayward PLLC represents the Debtor in 

the Mason's Discharge Action; Condon Tobin Sladek Thornton & Nerenberg PLLC represents the Debtor in another 

discharge action (Adv. No. 23-03053); and The Bhatti Law Firm PLLC represents the Debtor in the State Court 

Litigation and filed the Prohibited Motions.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 8
MASONS' OBJECTION TO MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 8 OF 8

DATED: September 13, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

WINSTEAD PC

500 Winstead Building

2728 N. Harwood Street

Dallas, Texas 75201

(214) 745-5400 (Phone)

(214) 745-5390 (Facsimile)

By: /s/ Phillip Lamberson

Phillip Lamberson

Texas Bar No. 00794134

Jason A. Enright

Texas Bar No. 24087475

ATTORNEYS FOR CHARLES AND 

KATHLEEN MASON

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 13, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was electronically mailed to the parties that are registered or otherwise entitled to receive 

electronic notices in this case pursuant to the Electronic Filing Procedures in this District.

/s/ Phillip Lamberson

One of Counsel

4862-3243-4559v.3 69003-1 9/13/2023

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 8