MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 1 OF 14 

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 

MOTION OF CHARLES AND KATHLEEN MASON TO ENFORCE 

THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND FOR RELATED RELIEF 

NO HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED HEREON UNLESS A WRITTEN 

RESPONSE IS FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES 

BANKRUPTCY COURT AT EARLE CABELL FEDERAL BUILDING, 

1100 COMMERCE ST., RM. 1254, DALLAS, TX 75242-1496 BEFORE 

CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2023, WHICH IS AT LEAST 

21 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE HEREOF. 

ANY RESPONSE SHALL BE IN WRITING AND FILED WITH THE 

CLERK, AND A COPY SHALL BE SERVED UPON COUNSEL FOR THE 

MOVING PARTY PRIOR TO THE DATE AND TIME SET FORTH 

HEREIN. IF A RESPONSE IS FILED A HEARING MAY BE HELD WITH 

NOTICE ONLY TO THE OBJECTING PARTY. 

IF NO HEARING ON SUCH NOTICE OR MOTION IS TIMELY 

REQUESTED, THE RELIEF REQUESTED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE 

UNOPPOSED, AND THE COURT MAY ENTER AN ORDER GRANTING 

THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE NOTICED ACTION MAY BE TAKEN. 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 2 OF 14 

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 Motion of Charles and 

Kathleen Mason to Enforce the Automatic Stay and for Related Relief (this "Motion") and in 

support thereof, respectfully state as follows: 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT1

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

completion of trial and for a jury verdict and judgment to be rendered in the State Court Litigation. 

Final Judgment 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. 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 Prohibited Motions and 

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

Bankruptcy Code. The Masons therefore request that the Court order that (i) the Debtor's filing of 

the Prohibited Motions violated the automatic stay, (ii) any action taken to date in state court with 

respect to the Prohibited Motions, without this Court's approval, is void, and (iii) the Debtor must 

take immediate action in the State Court Litigation to withdraw or abate the Prohibited Motions. 

To the extent the Court finds appropriate, the Masons would also request recovery of damages, 

including attorneys' fees and expenses in seeking the relief requested in the Motion. If the Court 

were to determine that the state court may consider the Prohibited Motions, the Masons would 

1

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

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 3 OF 14 

request relief from the automatic stay so they may file responsive pleadings and otherwise defend 

themselves against the Prohibited Motions. 

II. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STATUTORY PREDICATE 

3. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the 

standing order of reference from the District Court. This proceeding is a core proceeding under 

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. 

4. The statutory predicates for relief are sections 105 and 362 of title 11 of the United 

States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure ("Bankruptcy 

Rule") 4001(a). 

III. 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 numerous delays in the State Court Litigation by the Debtor, trial ultimately 

commenced on April 18, 2023. 

6. On April 20, 2023 (the "Petition Date"), which was the third day of trial (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. On the same day, Jeffrey H. Mims (the "Trustee") 

was appointed as chapter 7 trustee in the Bankruptcy Case. 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 3 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 4 OF 14 

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] (the "Stay 

Relief Motion"), 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 hearing the Stay Motion, on May 2, 2023, 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, pursuant to section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, the 

Court lifted the automatic stay, for a period of 90 days from entry of the Stay Relief Order, 

specifically to only allow: "(a) completion of the trial, (b) the currently empaneled jury to render 

a verdict, and (c) the state court to enter judgment (the "Claim"); 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. Also 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) 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 4 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 5 OF 14 

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 the 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. See Docket 42. 

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

2023) in the State Court Litigation. In the Final Judgment, the state court ordered that the Masons 

may 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.2

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, 

2

 Pursuant to the Final Judgment, the Debtor is also jointly and severally liable for damages against 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 $2,816,706.32; (c) statutory damages for theft of $1,000.00; (d) exemplary damages 

in the amount of $4,810,944.79; (e) attorneys' fees in the amount of $273,155.00; (f) expenses in the amount 

of $7,515.48; and (g) costs of court. 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 5 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 6 OF 14 

the "Prohibited Motions"). The Prohibited Motions are attached hereto as Exhibit A and 

incorporated herein for all purposes. 

17. On August 30, 2023, counsel for the Masons advised the Debtor's state court 

counsel that filing the Prohibited Motions violated the automatic stay, Masons' counsel would 

inform the state court that the Prohibited Motions were filed in violation of the automatic stay and 

not to act on the Prohibited Motions until addressed by this Court, and the Masons intended to file 

this Motion. Later that day, the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel indicated that the Debtor would seek 

emergency stay relief, but has not done so yet. 

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS THEREFOR 

18. The Masons file this Motion to enforce the automatic stay against the Debtor 

pursuant to section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, the Masons request the Court 

order that: (i) the Debtor's filing of the Prohibited Motions violated the automatic stay, (ii) any 

action taken to date in state court with respect to the Prohibited Motions, without this Court's 

approval, is void, and (iii) the Debtor must take immediate action in the State Court Litigation to 

withdraw or abate the Prohibited Motions. To the extent the Court finds appropriate, the Masons 

would also request recovery of damages, including attorneys' fees and expenses in seeking the 

relief requested in the Motion. If the Court were to determine that the state court may consider or 

otherwise act on the Prohibited Motions, the Masons would request that the Court provide relief 

from the automatic stay to allow the Masons to file responsive pleadings and otherwise defend 

themselves against the Prohibited Motions. 

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). 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 6 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 7 OF 14 

20. By filing of the Prohibited Motions, the Debtor is attempting to continue the 

State Court Litigation, which had commenced before commencement of this Bankruptcy Case. 

Accordingly, the filing of the Prohibited Motion, even if by the Debtor, violated section 

362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Cf. Marcus, Stowell & Beye Gov't Sec., Inc. v. Jefferson Inv. 

Corp., 797 F.2d 227, 230 n.4 (5th Cir. 1986) (concluding that the debtor's cross-appeal in federal 

district court was stayed by 11 U.S.C. § 362). 

21. In addition, although the Stay Relief Order allowed for completion of the trial and 

for a jury verdict and judgment to be rendered, the Stay Relief Order expressly forbade actions 

taken to allow for "a new trial or empaneling of a new jury in the State Court Litigation." Stay 

Relief Order ¶ 4. Further, pursuant to the Stay Relief Order, the automatic stay was reimposed on 

August 1, 2023. Thus, no reading or interpretation of the Stay Relief Order could allow for the 

filing of the Prohibited Motions. 

22. Further, 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 Debtor, and then any further proceedings would be in this Court related to the Masons' proof 

of claim3

 and the Masons' discharge action, both of which the Debtor is free to contest in the 

Bankruptcy Case. Allowing the State Court Litigation to proceed would result in duplicative 

proceedings addressing the same or similar issues, as the Masons' proof of claim and the Masons' 

discharge action are bankruptcy actions that will and should proceed in the Bankruptcy Case. 

Continuation of the State Court Litigation could also both significantly delay the Bankruptcy Case 

and take control of the timing of litigation away from this Court, as appeals of the Final Judgment 

could take years. 

3

 The Masons are in the process of preparing a proof of claim based on the Final Judgment, which will be 

filed before the bar date next week. 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 7 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 8 OF 14 

23. By filing the Prohibited Motions, the Debtor willfully violated the automatic stay 

and ignored the Court's Stay Relief Order. By this Motion, the Masons therefore request that the 

Court order that the filing of the Prohibited Motions was in violation of the automatic stay and that 

any action taken in state court, until authorized by this Court, on the Prohibited Motions is void. 

See York v. State, 373 S.W.3d 32, 38-40 (Tex. 2012) (holding that actions taken in violation of the 

automatic stay are void, not just voidable). The Masons further request that the Court order 

withdrawal or abatement of the Prohibited Motions in the State Court Litigation until further relief 

from this Court. To the extent the Court determines appropriate, the Masons also seek recovery 

of their attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in seeking the relief requested herein, and any actual 

or other damages. 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). 

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

Motions, 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. As argued 

in the Masons' Stay Relief Motion (and ordered in the Stay Relief Order) under certain 

circumstances, a bankruptcy court may lift the stay to allow litigation involving the debtor to 

continue in a non-bankruptcy forum. See Stay Relief Motion ¶ 19. Here, it would greatly prejudice 

the Masons if the state court were to consider the merits of the Prohibited Motions and the Masons 

could not defend themselves. While any action taken, without Court approval, with respect to the 

Prohibited Motions would be a violation of the automatic stay, to the extent the Court is inclined 

to allow the state court to consider or otherwise act on the Prohibited Motions, the Masons would 

respectfully request that the Court provide relief from the automatic stay to allow the Masons to 

file responsive pleadings and otherwise defend themselves in connection with the Prohibited 

Motions. In such case, the Masons would also request that the Court waive the 14-day stay of an 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 8 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 9 OF 14 

order granting this Motion, as provided under Bankruptcy Rule 4001(a)(3). Waiver of the 14-day 

stay would be appropriate under such circumstances so that the Masons could defend against the 

Prohibited Motions. 

V. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 

25. The Masons reserve all rights under the Bankruptcy Code and applicable nonbankruptcy law, including with respect to the State Court Litigation, the determination of the 

amount, allowance, and/or dischargeability of any claim against the Debtor, and including the right 

to amend, supplement, or withdraw this Motion, or any portion thereof, at or prior to any final 

hearing on this Motion. The Masons also reserve their right to proceed in the State Court Litigation 

against non-debtors. 

VI. PRAYER 

The Masons respectfully request that this Court: (i) grant the relief requested in this 

Motion; (ii) order that the filing of the Prohibited Motions was in violation of the automatic stay 

and that any action taken in state court with respect to the Prohibited Motions is void, without this 

Court's approval; (iii) require the Debtor to withdraw, abate, or otherwise prevent the Prohibited 

Motions from moving forward; (iv) 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; (v) awarding the Masons actual damages and other 

damages as appropriate, including attorneys' fees and expenses in seeking the relief requested in 

the Motion; and (vi) 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] 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 9 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 10 OF 14 

DATED: September 1, 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 CONFERENCE 

As noted earlier in this Motion, the undersigned hereby certifies that, on August 30, 2023, 

I emailed Debtor's counsel in the State Court Litigation, who did not expressly respond regarding 

whether the Debtor would contest the relief in this Motion, but I assume that the Debtor will contest 

the relief requested in the Motion. 

/s/ Phillip Lamberson 

 Phillip Lamberson 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 1, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was (i) mailed via First Class Mail on the parties below; and (ii) 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/ Jason A. Enright 

Jason A. Enright 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 10 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 11 OF 14 

Debtor:

Carl Gerard Dorvil 

1114 Newcastle Dr. 

Rockwall, Texas 75032 

Attorneys for Debtors:

Guy H. Holman 

Guy Harvey Holman, PLLC 

8330 Lyndon B Johnson Fwy 

Suite B646 

Dallas, Texas 75243 

Melissa S. Hayward 

Hayward PLLC 

10501 N. Central Expry, Ste. 106 

Dallas, TX 75231 

Chapter 7 Trustee:

Jeffrey H. Mims, Trustee 

Founders Square, Suite 560 

900 Jackson Street 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

United States Trustee: 

United States Trustee 

1100 Commerce Street 

Room 976 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

List of Creditors: 

Ariel Bouskila Esq 

5 Hanover Square Ste 2102 

New York, NY 10004 

Attorney General of Texas 

Bankruptcy Division 

P.O. Box 12548 

Austin, TX 78711-2540 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 11 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 12 OF 14 

Benchmark Title 

2007 Randle Street 

Dallas, TX 75201 

C6 Capital 

351 E 84th ST Suite #27E New York NY 

New York, NY 10028 

Calvary Fund I, LP 

c/o Fox Rothschild LP 

LP 101 Park Ave, 17th FL 

New York, NY 10178 

Compass Bank 

c/o John M Kuykendall 

15601 Dallas Parkway STE 900 

Addison, TX 75001 

Complete Business Solutions Group, Inc. 

22 N 3rd Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19106 

EIN Capital 

160 Pearl st FL 5 New York, NY 10005 

New York, NY 10005 

EMA Financial 

40 Wall Street 

New York, NY 10005 

Hop Capital 

c/o Ariel Bouskila; Berkovitch & Bouskil 

5 Hanover Square, Ste 2102 

New York, NY 10004 

Internal Revenue Service 

Centralized Insolvency Operations 

P.O.Box 7346 

Philadelphia, PA 19101-7346 

Internal Revenue Service 

Mail Code DAL - 5020 

1100 Commerce St. 

Dallas, TX 75242 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 12 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 13 OF 14 

Jeffrey Fleischmann 

150 Broadway STE 900 

New York, NY 100038 

Kings Cash Group 

40 Exchange Place STE 1306 

New York, NY 10005 

Kings Cash Group 

30 Broad Street, Suite 1201 

New York, NY 10004 

Linebarger, Goggan Blair & Sampson 

2777 N. Stemmons Fwy 

Suite 100 

Dallas, TX 75207 

North Texas Capital Partner 

c/o Carlos R Cortez 

1280 N Central Expy STE 360 

Dallas, TX 75243 

Payroll Express 

1871 Martin Ave 

Santa Clara, CA 95050 

Texans Cu 

Richardson, TX 75081 

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts 

Revenue Accting Div,-Banker Section 

P.O. Box 13528 

Austin, TX 78711-3528 

Texas Workforce Commission 

101 E. 15th St. 

Austin, TX 78778-0001 

US Attorney General 

Dept of Justice/Main Justice Bldg 

10th & Constitution Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20530-0001 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 13 of 42
MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY PAGE 14 OF 14 

Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP 

Attn: Sherrel K. Knighton 

2777 N. Stemmons Freeway 

Suite 1000 

Dallas, TX 75207 

Robert W. Buchholz 

The Law Office of Robert W. Buchholz, P.C. 

5220 Spring Valley Road, Suite 618 

Dallas, Texas 75254 

4876-8269-2733v.3 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 14

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 14 of 42
EXHIBIT A

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 1 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 15 of 42
	

  

 !"#$"%&'() 

*+,-./01,02345   6 738+/9708-7*8*2:-82; <,8+.//31,023=   6        >?4@?AAB=    6        6 CD45E:97*7,.9708-7*82; FG      6       6 ,H7./*233/*87230=..*=  6 9,..,0*2:38I=8/J,0 45*,-.92-K7.=   6  9A454@BG    6        LMNMOLPOQRSPTURLVTWXUYZR[VQXVORNVTROM\RQTXPU 

 9]
^_`9abF?>cdef
ghi
j^g

]
jk El5m4@4@b5a4El>nDo=DpDq454@b4ab5bb4@?44r@b?>G74Blssab@@tbaA= 9A454@BtarB@t*alb@BAa>>arBuv w xyz{! G| >?4@?AAB*tb>B1Ba445<@t>41Ba4_`}
cdBl59A454@B,?> ^f
~^_`cd]^_`cdf
i]h
]

 3a@BB?45n>?4@?AAB45Aabmb8t?b5b@n9A454@=*tb?B@astb0t>?ntG DG| ->F4@@a@t?Bma@?a4=>?4@?AABBl59abF?>AabbtaAa4@b@=ma4nt5 45b?F5=a4FbB?a445@tA@=Abl5l>4@?45lm4@=45Abl5=4>?4@m?BbsbB4@@?a4= 45a4Bs?bn  qG| 8t?Bm@@brB>>5@a@b?>?4Aba4@aAlbn=rt?trBsbB4@5r?@t>>aA@t >>5m@@bBs@btaAa4@b@GD



,4nbAb4@a@tEl>nDo=DpDqEl5m4@B@t;?4>El5m4@5aB4a@5m?@s@4 aAabr?F4na@?a4@a@tEl>nDo=DpDqEl5m4@B@l>>n?4A?4>l5m4@G9abF?> a@B@a@tA?4>?@naA@tl5m4@B5a4@t@bmBaA@tl5m4@=Brb?@@4G 9A454@9abF?>bBs@Al>>nblB@B@t?B*alb@@l5??>4a@?aA>>ssbBa4A?>?4@t fegg

g]f_fd`
f]
j

fgih
 l5??>4a@?aA?@Bar4bab5B?4lB?4Fa>F?4@tBmBl@m@@b@r4@tBm=

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 2 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 16 of 42
	

  

  !"#$#%&!%"'$((')%"!%''*("))&)%+**,($%##%"! -('!-(!#!#."/0123 4 5".) 60120!-(!*%"##+"!7#%")%"!%''**'())(7*'(+ 8($%)'(+(" #"#&%$#0&("$*%("0!'!0'#)"!%"#&+"!0'#9  +%*,*"!!%("0'#9 (+%**%("0")%"!+%*,*"!!%("0"#&("*,%& 0*,&%'%&))  7##*'())(7*:3 ;&!)#+*%"!+("!('<0111011111= 9>!!!( #+*'(!'!('<?011111= &@A+,) #+*%"!+("!('<?0111011111= #B

C
DEF
GF
HIJKLMNNOPPQ @A,"**%"!+("!('<R04?46="# '-(*!*('&(! 

S T!0&&(#%"!(!.) 6012.#+"!0!%*-(!(##!!8($%)9 (%"!) "#*$)) )%9)'(!&!)#+*0,U#+"!%"!*!0*!!!( #+*0 

CLVWLX
XFLYW
U#+"!%"!*!7##9($!(-)* Z*(""#[!)"Z*("%"*!;%)-(""&!%("*0\\- R #')!#+"!%"*!;%),($%#*!!!Z*("*&"&($#+* B]^_
XE]
B]`X
Laa`bGXDX
X
LECDY "#&%$#0&("$*%("0!'!0'#)"!%"#&+"!0'#9 +%*,*"!!%("0'#9  (+%**%("0")%"!+%*,*"!!%("0"#&("*,%& c%"!'())(7%"+("!*: ;&!)#+*%"!+("!('<0111011111= 9U#+"!%"!*!!!!('?4d0!(!)%"<06?S0R1S20,)*<?0/14? %"##%!%("),U#+"!%"!*!'(&#!'(+."/0120!(! "! ('!%*T%").#+"!= &>!!!( #+*'(!'!('<?0111= #@A+,) #+*%"!+("!('<06?1/R/=

B

C
DEF
HIR20?4411= '@A,"**%"!+("!('<R04?46="# e

WX
XC
DELWOfghijklimnomphiqrk024>s#R0RStA?/S?c=Au @$%#1?t&c e

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 3 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 17 of 42
	

  


  !"#$% !&'()*!!+ !+!%,-./01 )))!%!2!%!"*%(!#3%*$%()) (""4#+(,+%*!2)!%,'()*!(!"$)#)+3%5+$% !&'()*!!+ ! 6 7""4#!2'()*! !! !2!()+!2% ! ,3!%+("#")8%+5" +!!")!%+35%,, !)3+)!,%+!2*%(! 3%""3!)94!2"!,, 3!(")* # 

:;<=;>?
?@>

A
B *%(! C DDEF GHIJKLMNOIHNPNKQRNSHDPTN U V2 W%(+! 2%(")+!1!+"93( !2+ %"""4%+,3!(""4 (,,3! 5)3 ($$%+!:
BX:>Y
BX:>?

BZ:[\;[][^ '()*!B>Y
BX:>?
Y

BY
YB
>==>? !25)3 !%9*, !"4('( !_))!%#!21+) %,)*94!2'(+4+`3 5 )%! ($$%+!)94,3!(""4 (,,3!5)3

-a b
>>
YY

B

:9!1!23(  %,3!%!2! $+*!
B?:

:)!2% !2!)%%!$+!4 c!%+3%5+!!%+4d  ef
YY
?Af
B?>A:=?fB?B 
?A
BY?>?A
B?A>&+3%5+9" 3"*3 1232!2,3! + %!+!1)!2!!24)%!9 +!)ghijklmino pkqrstuovtptoltopkqrtowixtoygoz{iogqkrt#|6}~)-|#-.V`$$%( !%-.!28 ! |aaU#$!))Csiiowq{ohhqoqqksouovtptoltogjrj#|-|~)|UU#-&-.V`|aaC >>
;b


:
A?:+(+),%++3%5+4 -- 8,)!8%+5" 2%(")" %9+!)1!+"93( !2 !+!%,!+"1  )%94 (+$+ +32-#|a|#
Y>
	
?>
%)

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 4 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 18 of 42
	

  

	



 !"
#$!% &'()'*+',-*(,.'/0(',1233.45'()/'+233.6 

7869 2+(,(:)4+).)*;'*',,'0*<23,).=;8>8?;(:7=8*<@)4(,)/(A'0,(A.,B)*+',C< /'0*4.D:(()(:(4:E4('3,3,
#$FG"
#%

#H (,*4+,,<('(,<1+',(:33.4/'0,(6D:(()/'C3.)<E)(:..'+(:,3,4*(()'*4'+ 
#$F"!!F

IJKLMLLMA'0*4./'C3.)< E)(:N,1(:)*,O04(<'+:,P1(:@)4(,)/(A'0,(A.,B46



7?69 2((:)43')*(;(:(,).E44(+',23,).77;8>8?6Q*23,).7>;8>8?,'0*<7>R= C;(:7=8*<A'0,(A'',<)*(',((:()C;&46SNT)/:,<4'*;)*+',C<A,.@',N).(:((: /4E'0.<*'(P')*('(,).P/04)(E4/.'4<<0('(:33.6@',N).)*+',C<&46 T)/:,<4'*(:(:E4')*('''0('+('E*P4<'*:,,3,4*(()'*;('E:)/:4:

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 5 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 19 of 42
	

  

 !  "#$  %% " !&&"$ #$" # !'($ $%" )$'*+,-.


,

,+"$/ !$#$ 00  ""!$1 "$$ 2/%  !&&"&$$$  02 !$  % /34"    !& "!' 56'7 8&0 !$0234"/9! "" !5:;3$  <%  $&= >4?!$#!!42$&""2 ! 0%$ !$!$0 %   !&&"$% / !$!$"$#%" 0  "% " !&&"$  #$" # !',
@A,

+,+B-
,CD-+B
(&"5E/;E;F/#!! "  !&$  02)$'?!$/#!!"  ! 0"#G 



5'7 H! /#!" !&&"#$$ ""&# ! !I !<% (&&"$/ 3 34"#$JK
,+D+B !  !$#$$  "(&"5L/ ;E;F'M$&$/9! "")$'?!$$=#! !/ #!!)$' ?!$$   ! $! =##!2 #%"0$ &&&"'34"$%!   %0$ ! $$  !& "% 2&&"/ +,-DN++
@-"=$0" '(  !! !)  

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 6 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 20 of 42
	

  

 ! "#!$"$ !"%&#!"%&'&($)&! *))&&!*(!$"'"( +(,-)$"!(*$)(*)&(!,.$" !!)$"&!"%&$!#(($ "( /!0( "&/$)$/()!*0 $1"0!!"%"!"$"*0&%%#'"((*"%&$#!(  $1""(!$%!"#&#')$()$)( ")% ""&, ! "%&!!$%'"'") $"&!/$)$)(!'"1!)& )$((!

"!$" "($&!*/"!!/"&, 2,3 

4

5

67548
9
6 1"0 " "!0( "&$$0/&!*":"!")%#$(&" "(%"&#"

4;45
<=5>
8;?"'( &&0 "#$1"0$4
<=5>
8; &/($"("&/(""'!!$"("%)/(#!! "/$/( )%&0 ()!1"0!0/(@"#&0'"1!)&!/&!$% &#!01""("%&, .$1"0/( "#! $*A"')0(/&&($)(:)( $*A"')0%"$ <B8

85?C"$*A"')0!$!&0$!"&%)"*" $#"( $()(!$"/("( "#$1""($$""' !!&0!@( $"1"0("%)
;5
, 2D,3 EF"!""G
	
H9I
4J>KLMNONPQ (') )&&0(($!/""0R



Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 7 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 21 of 42
	

  

  !"
#$

%&!$'(
)
# *+,-./.+'0123(/,4032,./562-3 7 8,-9-..+(:,+(1'233'.',2.,'2*,+-'2./;4+<,*./629+4=.><1./ ;4+<:('52('2'*'>2..'-=+',3.,+4-'2.,2./629+4=.><2,.'*'>.',2236+,,3,5+ ./'+=+,0,23(+5'>23(>,23;4+<34.<42.'0./.+'0+(.+.3 ?@ A

%
#!#

""$(46-'..3.,./;4+<23
%&!$ ./*.*'23'2'(2,.(4==,+.36<000<,+*>.400<(4**'>'2.5'32>B/'0./C,4+.00,:3 =,(.D)#
E)E
A
F
GE))HE"

")
%I%
 J'6'0'.<K>.L88JKM1./;4+<'2(.+4>.',2(46-'..3.,./;4+<3'32,.>>4+.0<,+3N4.0< =4.*,+:+388JK>/+8,=+,=+0<+.4+2./*.5+3'>.'2(.O,+5'01./;4+</3.,*'23 420:*40==+,=+'.',28,*'23420:*40==+,=+'.',21./;4+<:(+N4'+3.,*'23./.O,+5'0 =,((((3>+'-'20'2.2.=4+(42..,./8P(20C,31Q>.',2RS+1./;4+<3'32,. /52,4/*>.40,+003*'2'.',2T6('(.,+.4+288JK5+3'>.'2(.O*232.(./+ :(2,(.60'(/-2.,+>+'-'20'2.2.(+N4'+36<./88JKB'./,4.>+'-'20'2.2.1 0'2.'**(-+0</564('2((3'(=4.12,.2003./*. ? 0'2.#"#$#E%$#!
%&!$!)
%
U "
%#)!#
GV#!U
%!#%!
$
G) 
%

%"
G%)#)WVX!$H%
WYZ"WY[WG+(40.,*./'(*'23'21

O,+5'0>,4032,./5>,2(='+3:'./K'0123./>,2(='+><>0'-*'0((-..+,*0: 6>4(>,+=,+.',2>22,.>,2(='+:'./'.(0*./+,4/'.(2.\]]^_]`a^bcd]efgd]h^ijck]ljf^ \lman^bcoa^ka^bccjkgdpk]^ijck]ljf^ijco]qdmn^bco1R@@QBR3Rr1RL8PK==DO00(?@@71 =.32'3MLsK(2+0+401>,+=,+.',2>22,.>,2(='+:'./'.(0*./+,4/'.(2.(sM 8/;4+<5+3'>.(/,40363'(++33

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 8 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 22 of 42
	

  

 !"#$%&'()*+,%-*.&,'/&%/&0/1,$,122345$-6-+ 5%&7,2%891+*+%+:$%22%.,-9)&3()*+,%-*8*6%-;<=>?@ABCD@E?FG<H?ID@;=J@KJ@;HFLDDM4 0NO6OP4OQRSTUUUV4WH<<BF@;=G?LX@KJ@YZBL[4Q\0NO6OU4O]RSTUUV4-6+:,& /&%-3^  _)*+,%-`%]UaS:,*()*+,%-*b*,$5%&7,cdd 
e 
ff
g

g"

"f "
	hijg
k
d *:%)26:78-8&%b-)/,-+%,-6,7,6)2()*+,%-**%+:++:9)&31-,-6,7,6)223-*.& .:+:&+:1%-*/,&13//2,*+%1%-*/,&13+%1%'',+1%-7&*,%-4+:$+4%&$&)6l,7-+:,* $,2)&4,+,*,'/%**,82+%6+&',-.:+:&+:1%-*/,&13$,-6,-,**)//%&+68372,64 )-6&23,-1)*%$1+,%-4.:,1:,*&(),&6$%&1%-*/,&13$,-6,-YDD@mBML=?@KJ@nH<F[HMM4Qo 0N6\P4\]RST]QQ\V 8 _)*+,%-]]ak
pc
"" "e  
ff
g"g



"f "
	hij g
k
 .:+:&5%&7,222623c
"" "hq,2+%1%'',+1%-7&*,%-4$&)64%&+:$+4 %&1%'8,-+,%-+:&%$S:r%)&+*:%)26:7*/&+23*)8',++6+:,6,--68++,- ,**)*l,7-+:,*$,2)&4,+,*,'/%**,82+%6+&',-.:,1:+%&+,%)*1+5%&7,222623,66 -68++6q,2+%1%'',+-6.:+:&+:$,-6,-,**)//%&+6832223-6$1+)223 *)$$,1,-+7,6-1YDD@sDFL@t=<u@vwKBF=<Fx@AA;@KJ@YG?yH<w@;=?FGMLB?z@YD<KFJx@AA;4{OP0NO6 Q]P4Q]RSTq//|522*U]{4/+6-,6V 1 _)*+,%-`%]Oak
pc}
ff~.%)26$,&23 "!fd

	
"f ~ff-3:6-6 &1,7641%-7&*,%-4

g"
"f
g"~hl,7-+:+2,-+,$$*')*+21+ &'63,-*+5%&7,24*/&+,-
6'.&6*,*7,+2+%*1&+,-:%.')1:'%-34

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 9 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 23 of 42
	

  

 !" #" $%$& $" #%"%!"% !"!#!& !"# '()#&#!)$& $" #%"%!"%!"!##* &" &$%!# !& !"#')))#$"&))&$"(#$+ #+, -&" . +/012%3&" 4"%5&!"%  !()" %( $ **""#"%))" -&" . +/7!&#&)")+8!!!#%!-&" /74 9:;:;<
=>?
;@@
A
=
ABC
=
C@?C
= 	DE8"%&#!)3&"  "!&)"#!3&!#%!-&" /0)'$& "'#& &)"3&" + +, -&" . +/F12%3&" !!" #!) -&" . +/0 %$%*! !))&*)) "%&#!)$)* 3&" +G * "%&#!) $)**& !"!# H*)!#*+I"%!#  "+2%&'*  3&"  4%"%!H*)!#*% &)#'!## "% $& $" ! $ **""#!&#&)")!(!')!! !+ JK+, L&!"%!#"2H)"%M&)JFJ7JKM&#*"""*"" % )#6 !() )') !"%#*!##"%#&)"5&#*""8)+N (!"%#&)"   O!!"$ "'#!!""%*&" !#"%!!"   !"&"" !"#" $)* ($! & !#!("()')"+G++ PQRSTUVW(+N$4X0XG+Y+J#X0/Z2H+[(+8+\]^_`A
CEEEa+8&$% 6 !()$ "')')'# "%#&)"5&#*"!#!#"8)+ Jb+, 2%[ &!"!!#'!#!5&#*""% &"!3&!"%c " )$" !*##!$ (!"6 !()&#!"%""% ! )')") +6&!"%%! ?C?d
	
>C>

<eAL)M&#*"#G(!$ )"#*""#"%##" )$"!*##)$"##* !))#!&#" !!(

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 10 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 24 of 42
	

  

 !"#$%$&" '(&"$&)"

*+,
-
.-/0 '0 $&&""1'"$&)"2(&"'((" $&($& 3""4%)&#$!&  &"%&(22% '"$&)"& 2%"1'(&"&"%&(22%5672%89488: 7'1  &"'2$& 2&" '"''1;&('1'& 22&(
 "'$&($& 5 <<<=> ?@A?BCD<@AEFAGEHIFJKIE L"(&"4#"1$& '"'4M( ' M&")2"#$(22%"NO&" " 1&& (&" "24'P'1  "'& 72%89488:4 '"  % ' 22&"$("""2(4"2&" N%&$1%P2% 2'5 M'QR89488:   S#$(22%1'4 TUVEWUXYYZEBX[E\Z]^_EHBB?E ``M%a5b    M%a5b4ab"c&58de89: fg6 %& "!%4a: 2 &46hgf8d 62#& Qi8dj8f:08f:: k$12Qi8dj8gl0:: m $ 5n2("15$&1 M%5n2("15$&1 FTT@IAKJDE\@IEGK\KAGFATE E

?KIT<\<?FTKE@\EDKIo<?K 

 6pqaLqrrOsS6qkt" '$&""$$&#%&((&"&  "1   12'42$&#'&" ''2)"'&22&" %&("$&"' $&($& & 89

'%&(R488:5        ``M%a5b     M%a5b

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 11 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 25 of 42
	


  !"#!"!"$"% &"' ()*+*,,-'  ./  0!"!'' 1234$#!!#!"!"% #5,5+  #6!' #5,5+7"8*9:(9+;()*+*,,  ./   #$"<'"= !"(!<'  "8*9:(9+;#5,5+  >?@A@B@A?C	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

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 12 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 26 of 42
 	

 Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 13 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 27 of 42
	





 
 




 !"#$% 

&'()*+

,(
-.
	/
 
 
 0
 1.
2'+
1
2)1&2
&-3)2
-4
 5(2'*++.
,(
-.6
 
 
 0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7	86
 
 
 
 0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0
 9:	/
;31&1(*
1
2)1&2
-4
 <
 
 
 
 
 
 0
 
 
 
 
 
 
 0
 (=1*+
&-..+&21-.
6
**&6
 
 0
 
 	/
&()*
-)1*6

 
 
 0
 (**(

&-3.2>6
2+?(

 
 	/	
 
 
 
 0
 


@ABCBDBCBDDEFGDDB 


2(2+
-4
2+?(


 0
 &-3.2>
-4
&-**1.
 0
 16



6
H-I
JKL:KLMN:
	/
OKJJ
2		8	
PQ6

R
SJJ6
7	6
2?
 KOJ:O6



2T86
3
(U
/7
R	/
V	7

VWR

8
/RX	
7/
 	





	/

	X	
Y7Q
8
R
	/
I
 Z ,
	X
8





1
X
<N
8


	/
VY7

XP	
 8
<	

1
X
	
	
7	8/

V
7Q
	
2T86
	/
1
X
R	87

/
 &7
<7
	

Y<[	/
8

(8
8R6
1
<
V8	7
P	Q7/


8
8
 \]^_`abac`dce^]_`fghci^j`^dck^]clbmcn]`of
 :Z 1
X
X7Q

8	Y7
	/
	88
QP
VX/
	
8
8
 Y
X87
	
Y7

&7
<7

1
<
P	Q7/
	/
	X	
7/

X
	<8	8
 Q
8
&Rghcpfb]qrcs_oct`puo]ah^drcodacod^jub]cpfb]qc]bvo]a`dvcb_bdjhcjuojc^ppw]]bacokjb]c <7
7/
8
,	
1	7R
(VV7
 SZ xkjb]ck`f`dvrcodacjubcy^w]jghcoppb\jodpbrce^]_`fghci^j`^dck^]czdjb]f^pwj^]{c (VV7
	/
)|R8



V	/	

1	7R
(VV76

&R
7P
	X/
X

 
8
Q8
	Q
Y	
VV7/
	/
	
Q	

WR8/	


/8
R
 }Z 1
Q8
78
7/

7
jubcpfb]qghc]bp/
Y
:VX6
	/
V

VV78
6
 Q
1
//
	
Y7

<7


Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 14 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 28 of 42
	





 
 




 	




	 






!
"!
 	!  
! 
#

$%
$	&
'!	
	 


!	!
"
# 
 	 	


 ( )
 

$%
	 
!*

+!
'!	
"
	 
 

#%!





"!
	
	
"

)
!
	 
+!
'!	

 
)
"	 
"!

	
	

!!	
	

!
!
)
"!
 


!
%
  
,%! 	
!

 - 	
%	 

(


!
$%
$*
"
 !
"
!
 ./012345634678976:6;1<=56/44567160.=4696>=42?@A6B4C125601269DD49=6EF6GD3678976A934659FH66:6  
1/6E489=06106I12J.=@A6C9A4H
 K )
"!
 


!
 


LM

"
)
!
 C13D=.4561/6E489=06106I12J.=@A6C9A4H
 N O	
)
"!
	 
#



!
"!
%
	


-

 *
)
 
	 
!*

+!
'!	
"
! 
!
  
	
*	"
"

"% 
#
#*
 	

 *
	 	


  )

		
	 
*	" 



		
!
  
	
 I12J.=@A6P17.1/60126Q4;6R2.9=
	% 	
#%
	
 

SS
T
T(
 &U% 
	
$	
$%	



VU!
	

K
 

%%!

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 15 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 29 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 1

CAUSE NO. DC-19-07426

CHARLES MASON and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

KATHLEEN MASON, §

Plaintiffs, §

§ 162nd JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF

v. §

§

AGILE CONNECTIONS, LLC, § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

and CARL DORVIL, §

Defendants. §

DEFENDANT CARL DORVIL’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 

NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT AND TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE WYSOCKI:

Defendant Carl Dorvil (“Dorvil”) respectfully files this his Motion for Judgment 

Notwithstanding the Verdict (the “Motion”) pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 301, and 

states as follows:

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs’ causes of action presented to the jury are all based on the Notes executed by 

Plaintiffs and Christopher Sahliyeh, the third-party Defendant. Plaintiffs sued Dorvil for 

individual liability under Texas Tax Code § 171.255 for breach of contract and tort claims, in the 

alternative, including money had and received, conversion and theft, fraudulent inducement, and 

fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy. 

After a jury trial on the tort issues, judgment1 was entered against Dorvil for the claims of 

money had and received, conversion, theft, fraudulent inducement, fraud by misrepresentation, 

fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy, as follows: (a) Actual damages 

1 Any reference to the July 28, 2023 Judgment as the Final Judgment does not admit acceptance 

of or waive any objection to the July 28, 2023 Judgment as actually being a final judgment. Dorvil 

objects to the finality of the judgment based on the terms of the judgment, as written.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 16 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 30 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 2

in the amount of $2,000,000.00; (b) Statutory damages for theft of $1,000.00; (c) Exemplary 

damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00; (d) Attorneys’ fees in the amount about $273,155.00; 

(e) Expenses in the amount of $7,515.48; and (f) Costs of court.

This Court also ordered that Dorvil be jointly and severally liable for the actual damages, 

pre-judgment interest, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs of court, and postjudgment interest against Agile Connections, LLC in a default judgment. The judgment against

Agile provides that the Masons can recover damages on all of Plaintiffs’ claims against Agile 

Connections, LLC (breach of contract, money had and received, conversion, theft, fraudulent 

inducement, fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, and 

conspiracy) in the following amounts: (a) Actual damages in the amount of $2,000,000.00; (b) 

Pre-judgment interest at the rate of 14.5%, totaling $2,816,706.32, plus $1,920.51 in additional 

pre-judgment interest for each date from June 9, 2023, through the entry of this Final Judgment;

(c) Statutory damages for theft of $1,000; (d) Exemplary damages in the amount of $4,810944.79;

(e) Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $273,155.00; (f) Expenses in the amount of $7,515.48; and

(g) Costs of Court. Against Agile, post-judgment interest rate of 14.5% was added to the total 

amount, compounded annually, running from the date of judgment until paid, plus post-judgment 

interest. Finally, the judgment states that under the one satisfaction rule, Agile and Dorvil are 

entitled to receive offset and credit for the amounts collected by the Plaintiffs actual damages, 

attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of court (and interest borne on these amounts). 

Overall, Dorvil moves for a JNOV on the following grounds: (1) Dorvil cannot conspire 

against himself; (2) the jurors have no legal basis for a finding of theft under the TTLA without 

any finding of criminal intent; (3) the default judgment rendered against Agile cannot bind Dorvil; 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 17 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 31 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 3

(4) the judgment doesn’t reflect an election of remedies (even Plaintiffs’ flawed selection of fraud 

and theft); and (5) the July 28, 2023 judgment is not final as written.

The judgment against Dorvil should be vacated and set aside because the jury’s verdict is 

not supported by legally sufficient evidence. Dorvil is entitled to relief under Rule 301 of the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure because a directed verdict in favor of Defendant would have been

proper, and there is no evidence to support the jury findings. 

II. ARGUMENTS & AUTHORITIES

“A trial court should grant a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict when: (1) 

the evidence is conclusive and one party is entitled to recover as a matter of law; or (2) a legal 

principle precludes recovery.” Stover v. ADM Milling Co., 2018 WL 6818561, at *7 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 28, 2018, no pet.); See Tex. R. Civ. P. 301.

Dorvil Cannot Conspire Against Himself

When asked in Question 10 of the Jury Charge whether “Dorvil [was] a part of a conspiracy 

with Agile to commit conversion, theft, or fraud that damaged the Masons,” the jury responded in 

the affirmative. Jury Charge No. 12, p. 15. Plaintiffs’ conspiracy claim wholly fails because the 

jury found that “Dorvil was responsible for the conduct of Agile” because “there was such a unity 

between Agile and Dorvil that the separateness of Agile had ceased.” Jury Charge No. 12, p. 17. 

As a matter of law, a corporation cannot conspire with itself through its agent. See Tex. 

Integrated Conveyor Sys., Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc., 300 S.W.3d 348, 381 (Tex. 

App.-Dallas 2009, pet. denied) ("As a general rule, a corporation cannot conspire with itself 

through its agents."). Plaintiffs asserted in their First Amended Petition that Dorvil was an 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 18 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 32 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 4

officer/director of Agile at all relevant times for this case. Plaintiff’s Amended Petition, ¶ 14, p. 

4. Dorvil could not conspire with Agile because the acts of a corporate agent, as Dorvil was found 

to be by the jury, are deemed to be acts of the corporation itself. See Texas Integrated Conveyor, 

300 S.W.3d at 381-82; Fojtik v. First Nat’l Bank of Beeville, 752 S.W.2d 669, 673 (Tex. App.—

Corpus Christi 1988), writ denied per curiam, 775 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1989). As such, the jury 

verdict should be set aside.

Plaintiffs’ Theft Finding by the Jury is Baseless

Plaintiff’s theft cause of action was not properly submitted to the jury and the jury’s theft 

finding is not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence. First, the matter was not plead 

by Plaintiffs in their First Amended Petition. While the Court allowed a post-verdict amendment 

of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint to plead the Texas Theft Liability Act (TTLA), the jury 

instruction submitted to the jury did not accurately or adequately put forward a TTLA question. 

Plaintiffs have merely alleged a business dispute with Dorvil and have failed to present any

evidence of any criminal intent supporting a theft finding.

The Texas Theft Liability Act provides civil liability for certain acts proscribed by the 

Texas Penal Code. Section 134.002(2) of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code defines “theft” as 

the unlawful appropriation of property or unlawfully obtaining services as described by Section 

31.03, 31.04, 31.06, 31.07, 31.11, 31.12, 31.13, or 31.14, Penal Code. Penal Code 31.03 provides: 

(a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property 

with intent to deprive the owner of property. 

(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if: (1) it is without the owner's 

effective consent; (2) the property is stolen and the actor appropriates the property 

knowing it was stolen by another; or (3) property in the custody of any law 

enforcement agency was explicitly represented by any law enforcement agent to 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 19 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 33 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 5

the actor as being stolen and the actor appropriates the property believing it was 

stolen by another.

Here, the jury was presented no evidence of unlawful appropriation because the jury was 

not properly instructed regarding the proper legal definition of “unlawful appropriation.” For an 

instruction to be proper, it must (1) assist the jury; (2) accurately state the law; and (3) find support 

in the pleadings and the evidence. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 278; European Crossroads' Shopping Ctr., 

Ltd. v. Criswell, 910 S.W.2d 45, 54 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, writ denied). The proper definition 

of “unlawful appropriation” was necessary to enable the jury to render a proper verdict.

To return a theft verdict against Dorvil, the jury had to find unlawful appropriation. To 

find unlawful appropriation, the jury was required to find that Dorvil possessed criminal intent 

pursuant to the Texas Penal Code, Section 31. There jury made no such finding in this case.

Finally, the theft claim was not properly before the jury because this case merely presents 

a commercial dispute. This case arose out of commercial notes and allegations that Dorvil did not 

pay Plaintiffs according to the terms of the note. The mere fact that a person fails to comply with 

the terms of a note or repay money owed under a contract does not, by itself, constitute theft. When 

a claim of theft is made in connection with a contract, there must be "proof of more than an intent 

to deprive the owner of property and subsequent appropriation of the property." Porter-Garcia v. 

Travis Law Firm, PC, 564 S.W.3d 75, 91 (Tex. App. –Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. 

denied)(citation omitted). This was a mere contractual dispute, not theft. When there is no 

evidence of criminal intent, theft convictions resulting from an otherwise contractual dispute 

warrant reversal for insufficient evidence. See Peterson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1983). Here, Plaintiffs failed to establish any criminal intent by Dorvil or put forward 

such theory before a jury, and therefore should not obtain judgment on their theft claim.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 20 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 34 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 6

Dorvil Cannot Be Liable for Damages Awarded in Default Judgment Entered Against Agile

Further, despite Texas law, the July 28, 2023 Judgment attempts to hold Dorvil liable for 

the damages awarded in the default judgment against Agile. However, the default of a nonanswering party does not bind an answering party in the same suit or deny the answering party an 

opportunity to assert defenses to any claims of vicarious or derivative liability. See e.g., Christian 

v. Venefits, LLC, No. 05-17-01218-CV, 2018 WL 6187612, at *4-*7 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 27, 

2018, no pet.) (“...default of a non-answering party does not bind an answering party in the same 

suit...”); Mayfield, 575 S.W.2d at 574. 

As such, Dorvil cannot be liable based on the default judgment rendered against Agile.

Plaintiffs Failed to Properly Elect Their Remedy, and the Court’s Judgment, Which Is Based 

on Plaintiffs’ Recovery for Multiple Claims, Is in Error

Here, a single harm purportedly occurred to Plaintiffs related to the failure to perform under 

the notes, from which they pled claims for breach of contract, money had and received, conversion 

and theft, fraudulent inducement and fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy. A party 

is entitled to sue and seek damages on alternative theories but is not entitled to recover on multiple

theories; to do so is considered equivalent to a "double recovery." Waite Hill Servs., Inc. v. World 

Class Metal Works, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 182, 184 (Tex.1998); Birchfield v. Texarkana Mem'l Hosp., 

747 S.W.2d 361, 367 (Tex.1987). The one satisfaction rule applies to prevent a plaintiff from 

obtaining more than one recovery for the same injury. The rule is that if the plaintiff suffers only 

a single injury, it can recover only those damages authorized under the single theory that affords 

the greatest recovery. Boyce Iron Works, Inc. v. SW Bell Tel. Co., 747 S.W.2d 785, 787 (Tex. 

1988); see also Tonny Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299, 303-04 (Tex. 2006); Am. 

Rice, Inc. v. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 518 F.3d 321, 335-36 (5th Cir.2008) (applying Texas law 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 21 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 35 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 7

and noting that prevailing parties may not "pick and choose" remedies from different sources 

to maximize relief) (emphasis added).

In the instant case, Plaintiffs elected the remedies of fraud and theft. The Notes form the 

basis of this case, regardless of the causes of action alleged by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are entitled to 

only one recovery, not two as Plaintiffs have attempted to select. Plaintiffs can select fraud 

remedies, which do not include attorneys’ fees, or a theft claim, which this Court has allowed the 

Plaintiffs to supplement post-trial, which allows for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiffs cannot select both. 

Allowing Plaintiffs to pick and choose from damages elements arising from different theories is 

impermissible under Texas law and requires entry of a new judgment based on the single tort that 

affords the greatest recovery. See Boyce Iron Works, Inc., 747 S.W.2d at 787. 

However, the Court’s July 28, 2023 Judgment does not elect any remedies per Texas law. 

Rather, this Court awarded Plaintiffs judgment against Dorvil on all causes of action, including 

money had and received, conversion, theft, fraudulent inducement, fraud by misrepresentation, 

fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation, and conspiracy. There has been no election of 

remedies, and therefore the judgment should be set aside.

The July 28, 2023 Judgment Is Not Final

The judgment as written is not a final judgment. The July 28, 2023 judgment entered in 

this case states that “while the judgments against Agile...[and] Dorvil contained herein are 

independent, the Plaintiffs’ collection of the amounts awarded...are subject to only one recovery 

under the one satisfaction rule and, therefore, both Agile...[and] Dorvil are entitled to receive 

offset and credit for amounts collected...”

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 22 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 36 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 8

The inclusion of this provision in the purported final judgment renders it indefinite and 

interlocutory. See Int’l Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Spray, 468 S.W.2d 347, 349–50 (Tex. 1971) (noting 

final judgment must be definite and certain); In re Blankenhagen, 513 S.W.3d 97, 100 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding) (“’A judgment is not final unless it is definite 

and certain, such that the clerk can ascertain the amount to place in the writ of execution. . . . In 

other words, ‘[i]f the amount awarded by the judgment cannot be determined, the judgment is 

interlocutory.’”) (quoting In re Educap, Inc., No. 01–12–00546–CV, 2012 WL 3224110, at *3 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 7, 2012, no pet.)); Chado v. PNL Blackacre, LP, No. 05-04-

00312-CV, 2005 WL 428824, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 24, 2005, no pet.). A judgment that 

awards “’an unascertainable amount cannot be final.’” In re Blankenhagen, 513 S.W.3d at 100 

(quoting H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bay, Inc., 808 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 

1991, writ denied)). Otherwise, ministerial officers would be unable to carry the final judgment 

into execution without referring to additional facts. See In re Blankenhagen, 513 S.W.3d at 100; 

Chado, 2005 WL 428824, at *1. 

The so-called “final judgment” in this case purports to award money damages against 

Dorvil minus a judgment credit any offset or credits for amounts collected for payments on the 

loans in question by the other responsible parties. Such a judgment term makes it impossible for 

any ministerial officer to determine the amount of the judgment against Dorvil without reference 

to additional facts. Thus, the orders are indeterminate and interlocutory as a matter of law.

And of course, the court of appeals will have no jurisdiction to review this interlocutory 

order. Qwest Communications Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 24 S.W.3d 334, 336 (Tex. 2000); Masa 

Custom Homes, LLC v. Shahin, 547 S.W.3d 33, 338 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2018, no pet.). The Court 

should rectify this error before the case is sent to the court of appeals for probably return to the 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 23 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 37 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 9

trial court for correction.

The lack of specificity as to the amount of the judgment rendered against Dorvil is based 

on an infinite number of future occurrences. As such, the judgement is not final and does not 

properly dispose of this case.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Dorvil respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion 

for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, enter a judgment that Masons take nothing from Dorvil, 

and grant Dorvil any and all further relief to which he may show himself justly entitled. 

Alternatively, the Court should address the failures in the judgment pointed out in this motion and 

render a modified judgment.

Dated: August 28, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

The Bhatti Law Firm, PLLC

/s/ Ditty S. Bhatti

Ditty S. Bhatti, State Bar No. 24062803

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300

Plano, TX 75024

Telephone: (214) 253-2533

Facsimile: (214) 279-0033

Vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com

Ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 24 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 38 of 42
Dorvil’s Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Page 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

THIS WILL CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has been 

mailed, telecopied or hand delivered to all attorneys of record in this cause of action on the 28th

day of August, 2023.

/s/Ditty S. Bhatti

Ditty S. Bhatti

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-1 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Exhibit A Page 25 of 25

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 39 of 42
ORDER GRANTING MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE STAY PAGE 1 OF 3 

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 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF CHARLES AND KATHLEEN MASON 

TO ENFORCE THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND FOR RELATED RELIEF 

Came on for consideration the Motion of Charles and Kathleen Mason to Enforce the 

Automatic Stay and for Related Relief (the "Motion"), filed by Charles and Kathleen Mason (the 

"Masons"), creditors in the above-captioned bankruptcy case (the "Bankruptcy Case") of Carl 

Gerard Dorvil (the "Debtor"). The Court, having reviewed the Motion and any timely filed 

responses thereto, finds that: (a) the Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1334; (b) this matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b); (c) notice of the 

Motion and any hearing thereon were sufficient and proper under the Federal and Local Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure; and (d) just cause exists to grant the Motion pursuant to sections 105 and 

362 of the Bankruptcy Code. Having considered the evidence presented, statements and 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-2 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Proposed Order Page 1 of 3

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 40 of 42
ORDER GRANTING MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE STAY PAGE 2 OF 3 

arguments of counsel at the hearing, and responses thereto, if any, this Court is of the opinion 

that the Motion is meritorious and establishes sufficient grounds to approve the relief requested 

therein. 

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:1

1. The Motion is GRANTED. 

2. Pursuant to section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, the filing of the Prohibited 

Motions by the Debtor was in violation of the automatic stay, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), 

and any action taken in the State Court Litigation with respect to the Prohibited Motions is void, 

other than as set forth herein. 

3. The Debtor must take immediate action in the State Court Litigation to withdraw 

or abate the Prohibited Motions. 

4. Due to the Debtor's violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1), the Debtor must pay to the 

Masons damages, which includes attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the Masons in 

bringing the Motion, in the amount of $_________, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k). 

5. This Court shall retain exclusive jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order. 

6. This Order is a Final Order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and is 

effective immediately upon entry. 

### 

1

 Any capitalized term not otherwise defined in this Order shall have the meaning ascribed to such term as set forth 

in the Motion. 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-2 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Proposed Order Page 2 of 3

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 41 of 42
ORDER GRANTING MASONS' MOTION TO ENFORCE THE STAY PAGE 3 OF 3 

Submitted by: 

Phillip L. Lamberson 

Texas Bar No. 00794134 

Jason A. Enright 

Texas Bar No. 24087475 

WINSTEAD PC

2728 N. Harwood Street, Suite 500 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 745-5400 (Phone) 

(214) 745-5390 (Facsimile) 

plamberson@winstead.com 

jenright@winstead.com

ATTORNEYS FOR CHARLES AND

KATHLEEN MASON 

4872-7691-9677v.2 

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 47-2 Filed 09/01/23 Entered 09/01/23 17:13:42 Desc

Proposed Order Page 3 of 3

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 53-1 Filed 09/13/23 Entered 09/13/23 14:19:21 Desc

Exhibit 1 Page 42 of 42