IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-50462

In the Matter of: LOTHIAN OIL, INCORPORATED; LEAD I JVGP, 

INCORPORATED,

Debtors

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHOSHANA TRUST, Lothian Cassidy Claimant, Capital One Northfork 

Claimant, Big Lake Claimant; ANNA MEISHER PENSION PLAN, Lothian 

Cassidy Claimant, Capital One Northfork Claimant; YG TRUST, Lothian 

Cassidy Claimant, Capital One Northfork Claimant; AKBERALI KHAKEE 

PENSION PLAN, Capital One Northfork Claimant, Webb Claimant; 

PENSION SOLUTIONS, Capital One Northfork Claimant; 731 895 866, 

L.L.C., Capital One Northfork Claimant; LISTOKIN FAMILY TRUST, BPZ 

Claimant; MYG TRUST, Put Exercise Claimant; HERZBERG FAMILY 

TRUST, Put Exercise Claimant; YYSD TRUST, Put Exercise Claimant; 

SPITZER FAMILY TRUST, Put Exercise Claimant; MOSES FAMILY TRUST, 

Put Exercise Claimant; BRENDA CRAYK, Put Exercise Claimant; 

HIRSHBERG FAMILY TRUST, Put Exercise Claimant; JG TRUST, Put 

Exercise Claimant; S. POLLAK AUDIOLOGICAL P.C. PROFIT SHARING 

PLAN, Put Exercise Claimant; JACOB DEKELBAUM, Big Lake Claimant; 

MIRIAM DEKELBAUM, Big Lake Claimant; YS TRUST, Big Lake Claimant; 

ISRAEL GROSSMAN, Webb Claimant, Big Lake Claimant, Casselman Well 

and Compensation Claimant; FEINBERG FAMILY TRUST, Put Exercise 

Claimant; SHORIVGER TRUST, BPZ Claimant; LOTHIAN CASSIDY, L.L.C.,

Appellants,

v.

BRUCE RANSOM; TOM KELLY; SETH MARKOWITZ; VINCE BORRELLO; 

DAVIS GERALD & CREMER; WALTER MIZE, being sued as “Estate of 

Walter Mize”; KEN LEVY, Appellee was originally in State Court action and 

has never been served, There are Orders to Seek Summons currently pending 

in Bankruptcy Court.; EUI-YULL HWANG, Appellee was originally in State 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 7, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 12-50462

Court action and has never been served, There are Orders to Seek Summons 

currently pending in Bankruptcy Court.; RAOUL BAXTER, Appellee was 

originally in State Court action and has never been served, There are Orders 

to Seek Summons currently pending in Bankruptcy Court.; DANNY 

MASTERS, Appellee was originally in State Court action and has never been 

served, There are Orders to Seek Summons currently pending in Bankruptcy 

Court.; JOHN CARLSON, Appellee was originally in State Court action and 

has never been served, There are Orders to Seek Summons currently pending 

in Bankruptcy Court.; LOTHIAN ENERGY, P.L.C., Appellee was originally in 

State Court action and has never been served, There are Orders to Seek 

Summons currently pending in Bankruptcy Court.; BCP, INCORPORATED, 

Appellee was originally in State Court action and has never been served, 

There are Orders to Seek Summons currently pending in Bankruptcy Court.; 

BIG LAKE SERVICES, INCORPORATED; ALAN GELBAND; SCOTT 

WILSON; CASEY DAVIDSON,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:11-CV-43

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

This case relates to the bankruptcy of Lothian Oil, Inc. and its affiliated 

companies (collectively “Lothian”), a matter that has already engendered 

multiple appeals to this court. See Grossman v. Belridge Grp. (In re Lothian 

Oil, Inc.), 531 F. App’x 428 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Lothian IV”); Anti Lothian 

Bankruptcy Fraud Comm. v. Lothian Oil, Inc. (In re Lothian Oil, Inc.), 508 F. 

App’x 352 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Lothian III”); Grossman v. Lothian Oil Inc. (In re 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

 

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 12-50462

Lothian Oil Inc.), 650 F.3d 539 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Lothian II”); FCR Guardian 

Trust v. Lothian Oil, Inc. (In re Lothian Oil Inc.), 411 F. App’x 736 (5th Cir. 

2011) (“Lothian I”).

I.

Lothian filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Western District of Texas 

on June 13, 2007. On June 27, 2008, the bankruptcy court approved the 

“Second Modified Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation of the Debtors” (the 

“Restructuring Plan” or “Plan”). In September of 2009, an unofficial committee 

of shareholders (the “Anti-Lothian Committee”), including several Appellants 

here, filed a post-confirmation challenge to the Restructuring Plan in the 

bankruptcy court, alleging that several property transfers approved by the 

Plan resulted from improper inside dealing. In a decision that was later 

affirmed by this court in Lothian III, the bankruptcy judge rejected the AntiLothian Committee’s challenge to the Restructuring Plan. Shortly thereafter, 

Appellants filed a state-court action in Kings County, New York (the “Kings 

County case”), alleging the same purported misconduct that the Anti-Lothian 

Committee raised in the bankruptcy proceeding. The complaint asserts 

numerous state-law claims against a variety of individuals and corporate 

entities involved with the Lothian bankruptcy (the “Kings County claims”) and 

seeks, among other relief, a constructive trust over the oil and gas properties 

transferred from the Lothian estate during the bankruptcy.1

1 The district court described the Kings County complaint as follows:

The complaint asserts causes of action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, gross 

negligence, conversion, breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, 

equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs 

accuse various defendants of converting, fraudulently transferring, 

misappropriating, and generally committing unspeakable atrocities upon the 

3

 

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 12-50462

On February 1, 2010, one of the defendants removed the Kings County 

case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 

On April 22, 2010, the New York federal court denied Appellants’ motions for 

remand and mandatory abstention and granted defendants’ motion to transfer 

the case to the Western District of Texas. The Texas federal district court then 

referred the case to the bankruptcy court, which treated it as an adversary 

proceeding associated with the Lothian bankruptcy. 

While the Kings County case was working its way from New York state 

court to the Texas bankruptcy court, one of the defendants filed a motion in 

the Lothian bankruptcy proceeding to enjoin Appellants from prosecuting the

case on the ground that doing so violated the Restructuring Plan. On April 15, 

2010, the bankruptcy court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting

Appellants from pursuing the Kings County case and later issued contempt 

sanctions against Appellants and their counsel for failing to comply with the 

injunction. The district court affirmed the injunction on appeal, but vacated 

the sanctions order. In an opinion issued after briefing in this case was 

complete, a panel of this court affirmed both the injunction and the bankruptcy 

court’s imposition of contempt sanctions. Lothian IV, 531 F. App’x at 441, 446.

While the injunction was on appeal, the bankruptcy court allowed the 

parties to file motions relating to the Kings County case so long as they did so 

in the adversary proceeding. Several of the defendants filed motions to 

assets of Lothian Oil, Inc. The accusations range from promissory estoppel to 

“asset rape,” and the suit, among other things, expressly seeks to undo 

settlements approved by the Bankruptcy Court during the Lothian

Bankruptcy. The complaint itself is a bloated, meandering, and nearly 

indecipherable 87 pages of sweeping, dramatic, and ambiguous accusations of 

conspiracy, manipulation, and blackmail.

Memorandum Op. and Order, Shoshana Trust v. Raleigh, 7:11-cv-43-HLH, (W.D. Tex. Apr. 

9, 2012), ECF. No. 121, at 2.

4

 

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 12-50462

dismiss, which the bankruptcy court granted, holding, among other things, 

that it had core jurisdiction over the case and that Appellants lacked standing 

to assert the claims in the Kings County complaint. Appellants appealed those 

dismissal orders to the district court, which dismissed Appellants’ appeals as 

untimely, except with respect to the appeal of the bankruptcy court order 

granting Appellee Tom Kelly’s motion to dismiss (the “Kelly Dismissal Order”). 

The district court affirmed the Kelly Dismissal Order, finding that the 

bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims against Kelly 

and properly dismissed those claims on standing grounds. 

In this appeal, Appellants challenge numerous rulings by the 

bankruptcy and district courts in the adversary proceeding, including the Kelly 

Dismissal Order and the district court’s decisions concerning the timeliness of 

their appeals. Kelly, who is proceeding pro se, informs us only that he agrees 

with the district court’s decision concerning Appellants’ claims against him. 

The other Appellees urge that the district court correctly found that Appellants 

failed to timely appeal the bankruptcy court orders dismissing them. The 

parties have also submitted a variety of motions, both before and after oral 

argument. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.2

2 Appellants assert that we lack jurisdiction to review the decision of the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of New York denying Appellants’ motion for mandatory 

abstention and that, as a consequence, we should transfer this appeal to the Second Circuit. 

Because Appellants have not appealed that decision to us, however, we see no reason to 

transfer or to even reach the question of whether we would have jurisdiction over that order. 

Appellants point out that they attempted to appeal the New York order to this court in an 

earlier appeal which the panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction while striking Appellants’ 

motion to transfer to the Second Circuit because the attorney who filed it was not admitted 

to practice in the Fifth Circuit. Appellants request that we reinstate that appeal, but provide 

no argument or authority as to why that request is properly directed to this panel or, 

assuming it is, why this panel should do so.

5

 

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 12-50462

II.

Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, we are bound by the panel opinion in

Lothian IV. McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 649 F.3d 374, 385–86 (5th Cir.

2011).3 In affirming the bankruptcy court’s injunction, the Lothian IV panel 

examined the Kings County complaint in detail and made several findings 

concerning the case that control our resolution of the instant appeal. First, the 

Lothian IV panel held that all of the claims asserted by Appellants in the Kings 

County complaint “are derivative of an injury Lothian suffered.” 531 F. App’x 

at 441. Accordingly, the claims “became part of Lothian’s bankruptcy estate.” 

Id. The panel also held that pursuant to the terms of the Restructuring Plan, 

the claims “reverted to Lothian upon confirmation of the Plan.” Id.; see also id.

at 436 n.9. In short, the panel held that the claims asserted in the Kings 

County case belong to Lothian, not Appellants. 

Second, the panel found that the Kings County suit was an attempt to 

relitigate the issues raised by the Anti-Lothian Committee in Lothian III and 

that granting Appellants the relief they seek in the Kings County suit would 

in effect undo the Lothian bankruptcy proceeding and violate the terms of the 

Restructuring Plan. Id. at 440. Consequently, the Lothian IV panel held, 

“[r]egardless of the merits of the Kings County claims, they cannot be divorced 

from the bankruptcy proceeding itself.” Id.

The Lothian IV decision makes clear that the district court did not err in 

holding that the bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims 

against Kelly. Indeed, it is clear from the Lothian IV decision that the 

bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction over all the claims asserted in the Kings 

County case. This court has held that claims which are “inseparable from the 

3 Although this court has recognized a few exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine, 

see Lyons v. Fisher, 888 F.2d 1071, 1075 (5th Cir. 1989), none are applicable here.

6

 

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 12-50462

bankruptcy context” and cannot “stand alone from the bankruptcy case” fall

within the bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. Southmark Corp. v. Coopers & 

Lybrand (In re Southmark Corp.), 163 F.3d 925, 931 (5th Cir. 1999); see also 

EOP-Colonnade of Dallas Ltd. P’ship v. Faulkner (In re Stonebridge Techs., 

Inc.), 430 F.3d 260, 267 (5th Cir. 2005). As the Lothian IV panel held, the

Appellants’ claims in this case are so intimately tied to the Lothian bankruptcy 

that they “cannot be divorced from the bankruptcy proceeding itself.” 531 F. 

App’x at 440. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction4 over 

Appellants’ claims, including their claims against Kelly.5 

The Lothian IV decision likewise makes clear that Appellants lack 

standing to assert their claims against Kelly since, under Lothian IV, 

Appellants lack standing to pursue any of the Kings County claims. The 

Lothian IV panel held that all the claims Appellants assert in the Kings County 

case allege harm to Lothian and therefore became part of the Lothian 

bankruptcy estate. Id. at 441. The panel also found that, under the terms of 

the Restructuring Plan, the claims passed from the bankruptcy estate to the 

4 Because the bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims, the court 

correctly denied Appellants’ repeated motions for mandatory abstention. Gober v. Terra + 

Corp. (In re Gober), 100 F.3d 1195, 1206 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Edge Petroleum Operating 

Co. v. GPR Holdings, L.L.C. (In re TXNB Internal Case), 483 F.3d 292, 300–01 (5th Cir. 2007); 

In re Southmark, 163 F.3d at 929.

5 Appellants urge that even if the bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction over the 

Kings County claims, it nonetheless lacked constitutional authority to adjudicate at least 

some of those claims under Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011). In Stern, the Supreme 

Court held that a bankruptcy court lacked the authority under Article III of the Constitution

to adjudicate a state-law counterclaim that was “in no way derived from or dependent upon 

bankruptcy law” and that existed “without regard to any bankruptcy proceeding.” 131 S. Ct. 

at 2618. This court has already held, however, that the Kings County claims “cannot be 

divorced from bankruptcy proceeding itself” and that they belong to Lothian by operation of 

the Restructuring Plan approved by the bankruptcy court. Lothian IV, 531 F. App’x at 440. 

Unlike the claim at issue in Stern, therefore, the Kings County claims are by their nature 

intimately tied to the Lothian bankruptcy proceeding.

7

 

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 12-50462

restructured Lothian. Id. at 436 n.9, 441. With respect to causes of action that 

become part of a bankruptcy estate, only the entity to which those claims are

reserved under the restructuring plan has standing to assert them. See 

McFarland v. Leyh (In re Tex. Gen. Petroleum Corp.), 52 F.3d 1330, 1335 & n.4

(5th Cir. 1995); see also Torch Liquidating Trust ex rel. Bridge Assocs. L.L.C. 

v. Stockstill, 561 F.3d 377, 386–88 (5th Cir. 2009). This standing requirement 

is jurisdictional. Dynasty Oil and Gas, LLC v. Citizens Bank (In re United 

Operating, LLC), 540 F.3d 351, 354–55 (5th Cir. 2008); see also Nat. Benevolent 

Ass’n of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) v. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, 

LLP (In re Nat. Benevolent Ass’n of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)), 

333 F. App’x 822, 826 (5th Cir. 2009). Because the Restructuring Plan reserved 

the Kings County claims to Lothian, not Appellants, only Lothian has standing 

to assert them. Tex. Gen. Petroleum Corp., 52 F.3d at 1335 & n.4. Accordingly, 

the Appellants lack standing to assert any of the claims in the Kings County 

case. Because Appellants lack standing to assert any of the claims at issue, we 

do not address the other issues raised in their appeal. 

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order holding 

that the bankruptcy court had core jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims against 

Kelly and that Appellants lack standing to assert those claims. Because 

Appellants also lack standing to assert any of their remaining claims, we 

DISMISS the remainder of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellants’ 

motions for reinstatement of the 10-50407 appeal and transfer to the Second 

Circuit are DENIED. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

8

 Case: 12-50462 Document: 00512491928 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/07/2014