In Re ColossusBets Limited v. the State of Texas

ACCEPTED
15-25-00150-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
9/23/2025 3:21 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
FILED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
No.15-25-00150-CV AUSTIN, TEXAS
9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM
__________________________________________________________________
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

15th Court of Appeals of Texas

__________________________________________________________________

In Re ColossusBets Limited, Relator

_________________________________________________________________

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST JERRY B. REED’S RESPONSE
TO RELATOR’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS UNDER
TRAP 52.10
_________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding from Cause No. 25-BC03A-0007
Business Court of Texas Third Division Austin, Texas

__________________________________________________________________

LAGARDE LAW FIRM, P.C.
Richard L. LaGarde
State Bar No. 11819550
Mary LaGarde
State Bar No. 24037645
230 Westcott St., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77007
TEL: (713) 993-0660
richard@lagardelaw.com
mary@lagardelaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR REAL
PARTY IN INTEREST
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Table of Contents i

Index of Authorities ii

I. Background 1

II. Summary of Arguments 2

III. Standard for Temporary Relief 3

IV. Argument 3

A. No Compelling Circumstances Are Shown 3

B. The Status Quo Is Ongoing District Court
4
Proceedings

C. Discovery Will Be Used Regardless 4

D. A Stay Would Prejudice Reed 5

E. Relator Is Unlikely to Obtain Mandamus Relief 6

V. Prayer 7

Certificate of Service 8

Certificate of Compliance 8

i
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Coalition of Cities for Affordable Utility Rates v. Third Court of Appeals,
787 S.W.2d 946 (Tex. 1990) .............................................................2,3,4
Statutes and Rules
Tex. R. App. P. 52.10 ............................................................................ 3
Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i) ........................................................................... 8
Tex. Gov’t Code § 25A.004(b)(2) ......................................................... 2, 6
Other Authorities
Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial
Documents ........................................................................................... 5

ii
TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Real Party in Interest, Jerry B. Reed, respectfully asks the Court to

deny ColossusBets Limited’s motion to stay proceedings pending

disposition of its mandamus petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Real Party in Interest, Jerry Reed, alleges that Relator ColossusBets

and its co-defendants orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to rig the $95

million April 22, 2023 Lotto Texas drawing by bulk-printing millions of

tickets using counterfeit QR codes and unauthorized terminal access.

Reed, who held a legitimate winning ticket for the May 17, 2023 drawing,

lost more than $52 million in diminished winnings as a direct result.

Defendants’ scheme destabilized the Texas Lottery itself.

Defendants secured the $95 million jackpot by controlling almost all

number combinations. The fallout was swift: the Governor ordered a

Texas Rangers investigation, the Lieutenant Governor called it the

“biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the Texas Lottery,” the Executive

Director of the Lottery Commission resigned, and the Legislature

dissolved the Lottery Commission altogether.
1
Mr. Reed’s suit was filed April 8, 2025 in Travis County District

Court. On May 9, 2025, Rook GP, LLC and Rook TX, LP removed the case

to the Business Court under Chapter 25A. On June 18, 2025, the

Business Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to remand, citing allegations

about the date of formation of the Rook defendants.

Plaintiff then filed a Fourth Amended Petition on August 5, 2025,

expressly removing allegations regarding the date of formation of the

Rook defendants and disclaiming any reliance on governance or internal

affairs theories. On August 25, 2025, Judge Andrews remanded the case,

holding that the Business Court no longer had jurisdiction under

§25A.004(b)(2). ColossusBets now seeks mandamus.

II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The Supreme Court has made clear that a stay of trial court

proceedings should not be granted absent “compelling

circumstances”. Coal. of Cities for Affordable Util. Rates v. Third Court

of Appeals, 787 S.W.2d 946, 947 (Tex. 1990). None are shown here.

ColossusBets seeks a blanket freeze that would derail critical

deadlines and discovery already ordered by the trial court. But it

2
identifies no irreparable harm, no threat to appellate jurisdiction, and no

compelling reason to halt proceedings. By contrast, a stay would inflict

concrete prejudice on Reed, including jeopardizing his ability to serve

elusive foreign defendants by the December joinder deadline and

delaying essential tracing of jackpot proceeds so that the individual

gamblers can be identified and joined.

Because Relator fails to demonstrate compelling circumstances, Rule

52.10 does not permit a stay.

III. STANDARD FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF

Temporary relief under TRAP 52.10 is discretionary and appropriate

only to protect appellate jurisdiction and maintain the status quo. The

Supreme Court has cautioned that granting a stay “increases delay and

expense and should not be done absent compelling circumstances.” Coal.

of Cities, 787 S.W.2d at 947.

IV. ARGUMENT

A. No Compelling Circumstances Are Shown

3
Relator identifies no compelling circumstance that would justify the

extraordinary relief it seeks. Its motion does not allege irreparable harm,

much less demonstrate why routine participation in discovery would

warrant freezing the entire case. The only “harm” Relator describes is

having to comply with discovery and appear at hearings—ordinary

burdens of litigation that do not qualify as compelling circumstances.

B. The Status Quo Is Ongoing District Court Proceedings

The remand order has already been effectuated. The District Court

has resumed jurisdiction, set October 1 hearings on Reed’s motions to

compel, and is actively administering the case. Granting a stay would not

preserve the status quo but change it, interrupting pending hearings and

shielding defendants from discovery obligations. That is the very type of

disruption the Supreme Court warned against in Coalition of Cities.

C. Discovery Will Be Used Regardless

Even if mandamus were granted, the discovery now proceeding will

not be wasted. The case will still require discovery into Rook’s ownership,

the identity of the gamblers who funded the April 22, 2023 ticket pool,

and the tracing of jackpot proceeds. In addition, ColossusBets’ Special

Appearance necessitates jurisdictional discovery into its Texas contacts.
4
This evidence will be relevant in any forum and under any pleading.

Necessary discovery is not irreparable injury—and certainly not a

compelling circumstance that justifies the delay and expense of a stay.

D. A Stay Would Prejudice Reed

The service and joinder deadline is approaching. The Agreed

Scheduling Order requires service and joinder by December. Three

defendants are located in the United Kingdom and must be served under

the provisions of the Hague Convention. One of them, Zeljko Ranogajec,

is notoriously difficult to serve. He’s known in gambling circles as “The

Joker” and is so elusive he’s been termed the “Loch Ness Monster” by the

British press. He resides in a high-security London apartment block

across from Buckingham Palace. Any further delay risks making timely

service on Ranogajec and the other U.K. defendants impossible.

Identifying the gambling pool members is likewise time sensitive.

Reed must trace funds to the individuals who composed the gambling

pool and join them before the December deadline. That process requires

subpoenas to financial institutions and discovery from defendants. A stay

would freeze these steps and dangerously compress the schedule.

5
Discovery hearings are also set for October 1. The District Court is

poised to compel the Rook defendants to comply with a discovery order

issued by the trial court on August 4, 2025, but ignored to date by those

defendants.

A scheduled deposition of Relator’s corporate representative in

London set for September 24, 2025 was cancelled days before the

deposition after Relator declared that it would not produce a witness

pending its filing of a motion to stay with this Court.

Delay benefits only Relator and the other defendants. Prejudice

falls squarely on Reed.

E. Relator Is Unlikely to Obtain Mandamus Relief

Mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion. The Business

Court’s August 25, 2025 remand opinion was detailed and well-reasoned.

Whether jurisdiction can be revisited after pleadings are amended is, at

best, a debatable issue. Debatable issues are not good grounds for

mandamus.

Relator’s “one-way door” theory is not found in the text of Chapter

25A and reads into Texas law words the Legislature intentionally

omitted. Nothing in Chapter 25A prevents remand when the live action

6
no longer falls within the Business Court’s jurisdiction. Real Party in

Interest plans to file a more detailed response to Relator’s Petition for

Mandamus in the coming days.

V. PRAYER

For these reasons, Real Party in Interest Jerry B. Reed respectfully

asks the Court to deny Relator’s Motion to Stay Proceedings.

DATED: September 23, 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
LAGARDE LAW FIRM, P.C.

/s/ Richard L. LaGarde
Richard L. LaGarde
State Bar No. 11819550
Mary LaGarde
State Bar No. 24037645
230 Westcott St., Suite 100
Houston, TX 77007
TEL: (713) 993-0660
richard@lagardelaw.com
mary@lagardelaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR
REAL PARTY IN INTEREST

7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on September 23, 2025, a true and correct copy of the

Response of the Real Party in Interest to Relator’s Emergency Motion to

Stay Proceedings was served on all counsel of record via the Court’s

electronic-notification system. The Honorable Melissa Andrews,

Respondent, was served via email to her court coordinator.

/s/ Richard LaGarde
Richard LaGarde

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This brief complies with the length limitations of TEX. R. APP. P.

9.4(i)(2)(B) because this brief consists of 1,100 words, excluding the parts

of the brief exempted by TEX. R. APP. P. 9.4(i)(1).

/s/ Richard LaGarde
Richard LaGarde

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.

Richard LaGarde on behalf of Richard LaGarde
Bar No. 11819550
richard@lagardelaw.com
Envelope ID: 105977679
Filing Code Description: Response
Filing Description: Real Party in Interest's Response to Motion to Stay
Status as of 9/23/2025 3:26 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

David Harrell 793905 david.harrell@troutman.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Richard Lagarde 11819550 richard@lagardelaw.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Manfred Sternberg 19175775 manfred@msternberg.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Aimee Oleson 24036391 aoleson@sheppardmullin.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Mary Lagarde 24037645 mary@lagardelaw.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Jeffrey Adams 24006736 jeff@jeffadamslaw.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Jon Smith 18630750 jon@jonmichaelsmith.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Mia Lorick 24091415 Mia.Lorick@troutman.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Charles Conrad charles.conrad@pillsburylaw.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Grace Miller 24132499 gmiller@sheppardmullin.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Lindsey Mitchell lindsey.mitchell@pillsburylaw.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Derrick Carson Derrick.carson@pillsburylaw.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Bradden Pippin 24143893 bradden.pippin@troutman.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Kathleen Laird Kathleen.Laird@Troutman.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Jon Sink jonathan.sink@pillsburylaw.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Honorable Melissa Andrews bcdivision3a@txcourts.gov 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT

Ryan Dickinson ryandickinson79@gmail.com 9/23/2025 3:21:02 PM SENT