Firoz Dhamani v. Mustapha Oulad-Chikh, Derivatively on Behalf of Global Real Estate, LLC

ACCEPTED
15-25-00103-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/5/2025 2:10 PM
IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALSCHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
OF TEXAS CLERK
__________________________________________________________________
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
NO. 15-25-00103-CV 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

Firoz Dhamani,
Appellant

v.

Mustapha Oulad-Chikh,
derivatively on behalf of GLOBAL REAL ESTATE, LLC,
Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO ABATE APPEAL
__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from Texas Business Court, First District;
Hon. Andrea K. Bouressa, Presiding Judge.
__________________________________________________________________

ORAL ARGUMENT Brian K. Norman
CONDITIONALLY REQUESTED bkn@snlegal.com
Michael L. Hood
mhood@snlegal.com
Russell J. DePalma
rjd@snlegal.com
SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP
1800 Valley View Lane, Ste. 200
Farmers Branch, TX 75234
(214) 987-1745
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

COMES NOW, Appellant Firoz Dhamani, Defendant below, and files

this Motion to Abate Appeal. Appellant would show the following:

1. Regarding the requested abatement, Appellee (Plaintiff in the trial

court) does not oppose the relief sought herein.

2. On June 12, 2025, Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal.

3. On June 23, 2025, this Court notified the parties that the

Reporter’s Record had been filed. Because the Clerk’s Record had been filed

earlier, the Reporter’s Record filing commenced the briefing schedule.

4. This is an accelerated appeal, therefore the deadline for

Appellant’s brief is 20 days after the Court receives the full appellate record, or

was initially Monday July 14, 2025.

5. In the time since Appellant instituted this appeal, the parties have

sought to resolve their dispute. To enable the parties to concentrate on said

resolution, and not spend money on appellate proceedings that would only

prolong this lawsuit, Appellant has sought a series of extensions.

6. The Court granted Appellant’s first unopposed extension request

and moved the deadline for Appellant’s brief to August 13, 2025.

7. The Court granted Appellant’s second unopposed extension

request and moved the deadline for Appellant’s brief to September 15, 2025.

2
8. The Court granted Appellant’s third unopposed extension request

and moved the deadline for Appellant’s brief to October 17, 2025.

9. Appellant informed the Court in his Third Request for Extension:

As part of the settlement, and conclusion of their dispute, the parties are
negotiating securitized loans on properties in multiple states,
restructuring the ownership of their LLC, unwinding their other
transactions, and effectuating the sale of the ‘Wagon Wheel’ property in
Texas and another large property in Tennessee to third-parties – a
complicated set of transactions … to ensure all parties’ interests are
protected.

10. Appellant further stated that “the terms, conditions, and any

necessary third-party involvement to effectuate the parties’ deal, are being

negotiated.” Those negotiations have moved substantially forward in the

intervening five weeks but are not concluded. Appellant apologizes to the

Court for not keeping the Court apprised of such status, which resulted in the

Court’s order of October 23, 2025.

11. In an earlier motion for extension, Appellant represented to this

Court that “[t]he negotiations are complex because the business that is the

subject of the parties’ dispute owns properties in multiple states that will be

affected by any resolution.” This conclusion has not changed since Appellant

filed his previous motions for continuance, which the Court granted. The

negotiations include both Appellant and Appellee (as an individual, not in a

3
derivative capacity), a third-party lender, and the entity that Appellee claims to

represent derivatively.

12. On August 15, 2025, Appellant sent a first set of deal documents to

Appellee to review. The set contained a settlement and release among 32

operative agreements and resolutions relating to the Global Real Estate, LLC,

management and holdings.

13. On September 12, 2025, Appellee sent his proposed revisions and

negotiation points.

14. On October 10, 2025, Appellant sent a second set of 29 documents

– the total had been reduced in part by combining some prior stand-alone

documents – and currently awaits reversion from Appellee.

15. The Court granted a Fourth Extension for Appellant to file his

brief on October 30, 2025, and extended the deadline to December 8, 2025.

Since then, Appellant has not heard from Appellee regarding the settlement

documents and the status of settlement.

16. At this point, although Appellant would like to have the settlement

concluded, he is uncertain of the status and may have to reopen matters in the

Business Court instead of pursuing settlement and maintaining this appeal.

That issue is murky because Appellant has no clarity from Appellee regarding

4
any of their negotiations or activities, and recent events have caused Appellant

concern that Appellee may undermine the deal.

17. Unfortunately, the few facts Appellant has regarding Appellee’s

intentions have only been revealed in the days immediately following the

Thanksgiving holiday and are not clear.

18. Through Wednesday, December 3, Appellant’s lead briefing

attorney for this appeal (Mr. DePalma) had been in trial in Kaufman County

for error preservation, jury charge issues, and pre-verdict motions, therefore his

ability to work on this appeal has been impacted and he had refrained from

incurring expenses for Appellant in the hope that the settlement would

conclude.

19. To ensure the parties focus their energies on reaching an accord,

and employ their attorneys primarily for resolving their dispute instead of

perpetuating it, Appellant effectively seeks an extension of his briefing

deadline, but understands that asking for yet another extension is somewhat

insufficient to the circumstances. Appellant has reason to believe that Appellee

may be taking actions that will require further litigation in the Business Court

prior to involving this Court, but still prefers to conclude the deal that the

parties have, in principle, created. Appellant would therefore request that the

5
Court abate this appeal for no less than 60 days, and re-set Appellant’s briefing

deadline to 20 days after any reinstatement.

20. Appellant is ready and willing to provide a status update at any

point in the new year to assist the Court in determining the course of this

appeal, which will also enable Appellant to further determine a course of

action. Appellant remains hopeful of obtaining a settlement, which would

terminate this appeal and therefore obviate any further need for this

proceeding.

21. For the reasons stated above, and to prevent continually

reapplying to the Court for briefing extensions, Appellant requests that the

Court abate this appeal for 60 days.

22. Appellant does not seek the abatement for delay but to ensure

justice will not be denied.

6
Respectfully submitted,

/s/Russell J. DePalma
BRIAN K. NORMAN
Texas Bar No. 00797161
bkn@snlegal.com
STEVEN R. TITTLE, JR.
State Bar No. 24028043
s@snlegal.com
MICHAEL L. HOOD
State Bar No. 099434435
mhood@snlegal.com
RUSSELL J. DePALMA
Texas Bar No. 00795318
rjd@snlegal.com
DAVID JEFRIE MIZGALA
State Bar No. 24031594
djm@snlegal.com
SHAMOUN & NORMAN, LLP
1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 200
Farmers Branch, Texas 75234
Telephone: (214) 987-1745
Attorneys for Appellant, Firoz Dhamani

7
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that on December 5, 2025 I conferred with Jesse Hoffman,
counsel for Appellee, who indicated that this motion is unopposed.

/s/Russell J. DePalma
RUSSELL J. DePALMA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on December 5, 2025, I served a copy of this motion by
electronic service and electronic mail upon counsel for Appellee.

/s/Russell J. DePalma
RUSSELL J. DePALMA

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that this Motion complies with the type size and word count
limitations set forth in the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it
contains 941 words not exempt from the word count limits and has been
generated in a 14-point proportionate-type font.

/s/Russell J. DePalma
RUSSELL J. DePALMA

8
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Donnabell Lathrom on behalf of Russell DePalma
Bar No. 795318
dbl@snlegal.com
Envelope ID: 108779856
Filing Code Description: Motion
Filing Description: Motion to Abate Appeal
Status as of 12/5/2025 2:22 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Brian K.Norman bkn@snlegal.com 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM SENT

Michael L.Hood mhood@snlegal.com 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM SENT

Russell DePalma rjd@snlegal.com 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM SENT

Julia Cain jec@snlegal.com 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM SENT

David Mizgala djm@snlegal.com 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM SENT

Jesse Hoffman jhoffman@mccathernlaw.com 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM SENT

Asher Miller amiller@mccathernlaw.com 12/5/2025 2:10:30 PM SENT