Storable, Inc.; RedNova Labs, Inc. (d/B/A storEDGE); Sitelink Software, LLC; Easy Storage Solutions, LLC; Bader Co.; And Property First Group, LP v. Safelease Insurance Services, LLC

ACCEPTED 15-25-00020-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/7/2025 4:57 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE No. 15-25-00020-CV CLERK FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Storable, Inc.; RedNova Labs, Inc. (d/b/a storEDGE); Sitelink Clerk Software, LLC; Easy Storage Solutions, LLC; Bader Co.; and Property First Group, LP, Appellants, v. SafeLease Insurance Services, LLC, Appellee.

On Appeal from the Third Division of the Texas Business Court Cause No. 25-BC03A-0001 APPELLANTS’ RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Dale Wainwright State Bar No. 00000049 [email protected] Justin Bernstein State Bar No. 24105462 [email protected] West 6th Street, Suite 2050 Austin, Texas 78701 T: (512) 320-7200 F: (512) 320-7210 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................. ii INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1 ARGUMENT...................................................................................................1 I. Justice And Binding Case Law Require Following The Texas Supreme Court’s Directions Rather Than Wasting Time While A Case Proceeds In The Wrong Forum. ...................................................1 A. The Texas Supreme Court instructs courts to treat an appeal as a mandamus proceeding when efficient. .................................1 B. Permitting Storable to efficiently request mandamus relief in the alternative serves justice. ................................................. 2 C. The Supplement does not prejudice SafeLease. ......................... 6 II. SafeLease’s Argument About Leave Is Another Attempt To Prioritize Formality Over Efficiency. ................................................... 7 III. Storable Requests Leave For The Supplement. ................................... 8 PRAYER ........................................................................................................ 8 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................................. 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE........................................................................ 11

-ii- TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Barina v. Barina, No. 03-08-00341-CV, 2008 WL 4951224 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov.

21, 2008, no pet.)...................................................................................... 3 Bertucci v. Watkins, 709 S.W.3d 534 (Tex. 2025) ..................................................................... 2 CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) .............................................................. 1, 3, 5 Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. 2019) ...................................................................... 2 Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62 (Tex. 1998) ....................................................................... 7 Rules TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7 ........................................................................................ 2

-iii- INTRODUCTION SafeLease’s Motion to Strike asks this Court to delay resolving the merits and split intertwined appellate issues into separate proceedings.

During that unnecessary delay, litigation will proceed in the wrong trial court. The resulting inefficiency is precisely what the Texas Supreme Court instructed courts to avoid when it admonished courts against requiring formalities to convert an interlocutory appeal into a mandamus proceeding.

ARGUMENT I. Justice And Binding Case Law Require Following The Texas Supreme Court’s Directions Rather Than Wasting Time While A Case Proceeds In The Wrong Forum.

A. The Texas Supreme Court instructs courts to treat an appeal as a mandamus proceeding when efficient.

The Texas Supreme Court instructs that “judicial efficiency militates against requiring” appellants to take additional steps to convert their appeal into a petition for mandamus, such as having to “file a separate mandamus proceeding.” CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 453–454 (Tex. 2011).

Storable followed that instruction. Since a mandamus proceeding may be unnecessary, Storable efficiently filed in this interlocutory appeal a concise supplemental brief requesting that this appeal be treated as a mandamus proceeding if that becomes necessary. SafeLease invites this Court to defy the

-1- Texas Supreme Court’s instructions by requiring Storable to file a separate mandamus proceeding.

The Texas Supreme Court’s instruction is part of the more general principle that “[r]ather than disposing of appeals based on harmless procedural defects, appellate courts should reach the merits of an appeal whenever reasonably possible.” Horton v. Stovall, 591 S.W.3d 567 (Tex. 2019) (internal citation omitted). This Court should reach the merits of whether the business court erred by declining to remand to the district court and by issuing an improper temporary injunction.

B. Permitting Storable to efficiently request mandamus relief in the alternative serves justice.

Appellants may supplement their briefs “whenever justice requires.”

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.7. The Texas Supreme Court explained that liberal permission to supplement is “consistent with our oft-repeated position that that a party should not lose the right to appeal because of an overly technical application of the law.” Bertucci v. Watkins, 709 S.W.3d 534, 543 (Tex. 2025) (citation omitted) (remanding so that the court of appeals could request additional briefing or reach an issue rather than stopping at a “technical defect”).

-2- Justice requires permitting Storable to file a request for mandamus relief in this appeal rather than file a separate mandamus proceeding, for the reasons below.

First, the Supplement was filed on July 22 approximately six weeks after SafeLease filed its Response to the Interlocutory Appeal on June 6.

Mandamus petitions are not barred by laches when filed many weeks or even months after the offending action was taken. See, e.g., In re Laibe Corp., 307 S.W.3d 314, 318 (Tex. 2010) (holding a “two-month delay in seeking mandamus relief is not necessarily unreasonable” and that delay should not bar mandamus relief unless it prejudiced the objecting party); In re Am. Airlines, Inc., 634 S.W.3d 38, 43 (Tex. 2021) (a “year-long” delay did not bar mandamus relief). It would not be just or logical to permit initiation of a new separate mandamus proceeding during that time period but preclude an efficient conversion to an original proceeding by request during that same permissible period of time.

Second, while this appeal is pending, the underlying litigation is moving forward in the incorrect court because of SafeLease’s improper forum shopping and violation of the statutory deadline for removal to the business court. Appellants’ Br. 16–33. Justice is not served by unnecessarily

-3- prolonging the time in which litigation proceeds in the wrong court, or by rewarding forum shopping.

Third, justice requires following the Texas Supreme Court’s instructions mentioned above. It is unjust to “unnecessarily waste the parties’ time and further judicial resources by requiring [Appellant] to file a separate document with the title ‘petition for writ of mandamus’ listed on the cover where the party has expressly requested mandamus treatment of its appeal in an uncertain legal environment.” CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 453.1 Fourth, the jurisdiction of this newly created Court is still being worked out through litigation and legislative amendments. In that shifting environment, it would be unjust to harshly apply rules for briefing waiver.

One indication of this uncertain environment is SafeLease’s statement that it “is unclear why” Storable addresses jurisdiction over the temporary injunction. Mot. 8. As explained in the Supplement, until a clarifying amendment becomes effective on September 1, 2025, the statute authorizing

1 Storable raised this point in its Supplement, which defeats SafeLease’s argument that Storable failed to brief the requirement of justice. Cf. Barina v. Barina, No. 03-08-00341-CV, 2008 WL 4951224, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov.

21, 2008, no pet.) (“the rules of appellate procedure do not require the use of magic words to preserve error”).

-4- interlocutory appeal of orders granting temporary injunction does not explicitly mention orders of “business courts.” Supp. 5 n.1. While Storable and SafeLease agree that the statute confers jurisdiction over business-court orders even before the clarifying amendment takes effect, out of an abundance of caution Storable addressed this point because this Court has an independent duty to assess its jurisdiction. It is inconsistent for SafeLease to argue that Storable waived jurisdictional issues by not briefing them earlier when SafeLease itself says “it is unclear” which jurisdictional issues require briefing.

Fifth, Storable did not know that jurisdiction would be an issue in this appeal until SafeLease raised that issue in its Appellee’s Response, after which Storable’s next filing addressed that issue. And Storable’s position remains that this Court has sufficient jurisdiction through an interlocutory appeal. It would be unjust to find that Storable waived the issue of mandamus relief by not addressing it when Storable did not know that issue was salient.

SafeLease argues that the Supplement is unjust because it was not filed quickly enough. This ignores the intervening burdens on counsel. Those burdens include crises that SafeLease caused, such as SafeLease erroneously obtaining an order compelling production of Storable’s trade-secret client

-5- list, which required Storable to file a new petition for writ of mandamus and motion for stay.

C. The Supplement does not prejudice SafeLease.

The effect of the Supplement is that it may allow this Court to rule against SafeLease on the merits. That is not unjust prejudice. Treating an appeal as a mandamus proceeding is not problematic because the content, length, and timing of mandamus briefing are equivalent to briefing in an interlocutory appeal. CMH Homes, 340 S.W.3d at 453.

SafeLease argues that the Supplement should be stricken because it followed “SafeLease’s response brief—which explains the law” regarding the jurisdictional points discussed in the Supplement. Resp. 1–2. This implicitly admits that SafeLease had an adequate opportunity to brief jurisdiction in its Appellee’s Response and will not be prejudiced by the timing of the Supplement.

Appellee’s Response addressed jurisdiction in its first issue presented and first Argument section. For example, the Response argued that Storable cannot satisfy the requirements for mandamus relief because the business court did not commit a clear abuse of discretion. Resp. 26.

The presence of the other element for mandamus relief—no adequate remedy by appeal—cannot be reasonably disputed in this case if

-6- interlocutory appeal is unavailable. Therefore, the fact that SafeLease has not disputed that element is not an indication that it lacked an opportunity to do so. The Supplement only addresses that element in an abundance of caution.

Supp. 3–5.

SafeLease has not argued that it will be prejudiced without an opportunity to file a response to the Supplement. If SafeLease does request that opportunity, Storable would not oppose that request.

Lastly, the timing of the Supplement will not delay this proceeding because Storable timely filed its notice of appeal. Unlike delay in initiating a proceeding, which can delay all downstream events, the timing of the Supplement did not prevent this proceeding from moving forward because the filing of the notice of appeal started the preparation of the record and the briefing deadlines.

II. SafeLease’s Argument About Leave Is Another Attempt To Prioritize Formality Over Efficiency.

“Generally, a party must seek leave of court to file an amended or supplemental brief.” Standard Fruit & Vegetable Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 985 S.W.2d 62, 65 (Tex. 1998) (emphasis added). SafeLease’s brief omits the word “Generally” in its quote of the Texas Supreme Court opinion. It argues that because Storable did not explicitly file a separate motion for leave, the Supplement must be stricken. This attempt to escape the merits should fail.

-7- The Supplement will only become relevant “in the alternative this Court determines this interlocutory appeal raises an issue that can only be addressed by mandamus.” Supp. Br. 1 (emphasis). Rather than waste this Court’s time with a separate motion for leave that may be moot, Storable filed one document—the Supplement to Appellants’ Brief—which requested mandamus relief in the alternative that this Court finds it necessary. If the Court finds that it can grant all relief requested in the interlocutory appeal without mandamus relief, then there will be no need for the arguments in the Supplement and therefore no need for the Supplement to be filed. In this situation, it is not clear that the Court welcomes motion practice.

III. Storable Requests Leave For The Supplement.

For the avoidance of doubt, Storable moves here for leave to file the Supplement to Appellants’ Brief. If this Court instructs that Storable file a separate motion for leave, Storable will of course do so.

PRAYER For these reasons, Storable prays that, in the alternative, if this Court determines Appellants’ Brief raises an issue that must be addressed by mandamus, this Court grant Storable leave to file the Supplement to Appellants’ Brief and treat this appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus to the extent necessary to adjudicate that issue.

-8- Storable also prays for such further relief, at law or in equity, to which it may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP By: /s/ Dale Wainwright Dale Wainwright State Bar No. 00000049 [email protected] Justin Bernstein State Bar No. 24105462 [email protected] West 6th Street, Suite 2050 Austin, Texas 78701 T: (512) 320-7200 F: (512) 320-7210 COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS

-9- CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This brief complies with the length limitations of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(3) because this brief consists of 1,649 words as determined by Microsoft Word Count, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1).

/s/ Justin Bernstein Justin Bernstein

-10- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served on counsel of record by using the Court’s e-filing system on the 7th day of August, 2025, addressed as follows: Judd E. Stone II Adam Locke State Bar No. 2407670 [email protected] [email protected] LOCKELAW PLLC Christopher D. Hilton 2617 Bissonnet, Suite 503 State Bar No. 24087727 Houston, Texas 77005 STONE HILTON PLLC T: (713) 832-0242 Congress Ave., Austin, Texas 78701 T: (737) 465-7248

R. Paul Yetter State Bar No. 22154200 [email protected] Susanna R. Allen State Bar No. 24126616 [email protected] Luke A. Schamel State Bar No. 24106403 [email protected] Shannon N. Smith State Bar No. 24110378 [email protected] YETTER COLEMAN LLP Main Street, Suite 4100 Houston, Texas 77002 T: (713) 632-8000 COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE /s/ Dale Wainwright Dale Wainwright

-11- 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.

Sylvia Dominguez on behalf of Dale Wainwright Bar No. 49 [email protected] Envelope ID: 104118637 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: APPELLANTS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANTS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Status as of 8/8/2025 7:06 AM CST Associated Case Party: Storable, Inc. Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Cathy Hodges [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Dale Wainwright [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Justin Bernstein [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Ray Torgerson [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Carolyn Reed [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Jonna Summers [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Lakshmi Kumar [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Dolores Brunelle [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Liza Eoff [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Neil KentonAlexander [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: SafeLease Insurance Services, LLC Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Yetter Coleman [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Adam Locke 24083184 [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Delonda Dean [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Cody Coll [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Courtney Smith [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Luke A.Schamel [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Christopher Hilton [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Judd Stone [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT 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.

Sylvia Dominguez on behalf of Dale Wainwright Bar No. 49 [email protected] Envelope ID: 104118637 Filing Code Description: Response Filing Description: APPELLANTS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE APPELLANTS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF Status as of 8/8/2025 7:06 AM CST Associated Case Party: SafeLease Insurance Services, LLC Judd Stone [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Alyssa Smith [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Bonnie Chester [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Alexander Dvorscak [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Shannon Smith [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT R. Paul Yetter [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Susanna R.Allen [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT Rosalinda Luna [email protected] 8/7/2025 4:57:50 PM SENT