CFP BDA, LLC v. Super. Ct.

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CONCEPTS, INC. § and ELOY CANALES, No. 08-24-00036-CV § Appellants, Appeal from the § v. 131st District Court § of Bexar County, Texas BRIAN RAMIREZ, § Appellee. (TC# 2021CI04603) § JUDGMENT The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the judgment. We therefore reverse and render judgment in favor of Transportation Concepts Inc., on the theory of direct liability alleged against it. We reverse and remand for new trial on Brian Ramirez’s claim against Eloy Canales. We further order that Appellants recover from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be certified below for observance. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of June 2025. GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox, J., and Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret) Rodriguez, C.J. (Ret.) (Sitting by Assignment)

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS § IN RE NATURAL GAS SERVICES No. 08-25-00157-CV GROUP, INC. and CHARLES A. PEREZ, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING Relators. § IN MANDAMUS § § JUDGMENT The Court has considered this cause on the motion to dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. This decision shall be certified below for observance. IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of June 2025. LISA J. SOTO, Justice Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:21-cv-694-CEM-DCI HARBOR CITY CAPITAL CORP., HARBOR CITY VENTURES, LLC, HCCF-1 LLC, HCCF-2 LLC, HCCF-3 LLC, HCCF-4 LLC, HCCF-5 LLC, HARBOR CITY DIGITAL VENTURES, INC., HCC MEDIA FUNDING, LLC, JONATHAN P. MARONEY, CELTIC ENTERPRISES, LLC and TONYA L. MARONEY, Defendants. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This cause comes before the Court for consideration without oral argument on the following motion: MOTION: Receiver’s Unopposed Twelfth Quarterly Fee Application for Order Awarding Fees and Reimbursement of Costs to Receiver and Her Professionals (Doc. 200) FILED: May 14, 2025 THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED. I. Background Katherine Donlon, Esq. (the Receiver) has been appointed as receiver in this matter. Doc. 68. The scope of her powers was laid out by separate order. Doc. 72-1; accord Doc. 75. That order stated that Receiver was “given authority to retain Nicole D. Newlon of Johnson, Cassidy, Newlon & DeCort, as counsel.” Doc. 72-1 ¶ 2; accord Doc. 75. That order also provided that: 54. Subject to Paragraph 55 immediately below, the Receiver is authorized to solicit persons and entities (“Retained Personnel”) to assist Receiver in carrying out the duties and responsibilities described in this Order. Except for counsel retained by the Receiver pursuant to Paragraph 2 of this Order, the Receiver shall not engage any Retained Personnel without first obtaining an Order of the Court authorizing such engagement. 55. The Receiver and Retained Personnel are entitled to reasonable compensation and expense reimbursement from the Receivership Estates as described in the “Billing Instructions for Receivers in Civil Actions Commenced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission” (the “Billing Instructions”) agreed to by the Receiver. Such compensation shall require the prior approval of the Court. Doc. 72-1 ¶¶ 54, 55; accord Doc. 75. To receive these fees, the order provided that: 56. Within forty-five (45) days after the end of each calendar quarter, the Receiver and Retained Personnel shall apply to the Court for compensation and expense reimbursement from the Receivership Estates (the “Quarterly Fee Applications”). At least thirty (30) days prior to filing each Quarterly Fee Application with the Court, the Receiver will serve upon counsel for the Commission a complete copy of the proposed Application, together with all exhibits and relevant billing information in a format to be provided by Commission staff. Doc. 72-1 ¶ 56; accord Doc. 75. Accordingly, Receiver filed her Twelfth Quarterly Fee Application, which is unopposed.1 Doc. 200 (the Motion). II. Standard Courts are required to utilize the lodestar approach to determine reasonable compensation. SEC v. Aquacell Batteries, Inc., No. 6:07-cv-608-Orl-22DAB, 2008 WL 276026, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2008). The lodestar figure is reached by “multiply[ing] the number of hours reasonably 1 The undersigned notes that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s lack of objection is a factor in the analysis. See S.E.C. v. Kirkland, 2011 WL 5985025, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 4, 2011) (“[T]he Court will consider the SEC's lack of objection as simply one factor in the analysis.”). expended by a reasonable hourly rate.” Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations omitted); see also Jackson v. Grupo Indus. Hotelero, S.A., No. 07-22046, 2010 WL 750301, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 2010). The party moving for fees has the burden of establis