news, sports, business | expressnews.com - san antonio ......process right to a judicial...

J. Mitchell LittleState Bar No. 24043788Email: [email protected] J. SchurrState Bar No. 17853530Email: [email protected] & STONE, L.L.P.2601 Network BoulevardSuite 102Frisco, Texas 75034Telephone: 214.472.2100Telecopier: 214.472.2150

ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTS

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN RE: §§

PRIMERA ENERGY, L.L.C., § CASE NO. 15-51396§

Debtor. §______________________________________ §

§FREDERICK PATEK, GERALDINE §PATEK, JIM GREGORY, CAL CURTNER,.§LISA SIMPSON, JASPER CAMPISE, §KAREN SMITH, WILLIAM CRAWFORD, §MIKE COVINGTON, MARC KEESE, §MIKE MCPHERSON, ED MCPHERSON, §WESLEY CROW, DIETER JANSEN, §QUACKENBUSH PETROLEUM, §JAMES REILEY, BETTY REILEY, §RICK REILEY, GREG SHILTS, §JANA SHILTS, VINCENT J. GILLETTE, §MARJORIE A. GILLETTE, THOMAS J. §GILLETTE, EDWARD A. GILLETTE, §SHARON WALLS AND BUDDY WALLS §AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER §SIMILARLY SITUATED INVESTORS §OF DEFENDANTS’ “SCREAMING §EAGLE”, “MONTAGUE §LEGACY” AND “BUDA WELL” §

DEFENDANT BRIAN ALFARO’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING - PAGE 1N:\pschurr\alfaro\removal\stay\motion stay.wpd

15-05047-cag Doc#33 Filed 08/17/15 Entered 08/17/15 11:04:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 13

mailto:[email protected]


INVESTMENTS, §§

Plaintiffs, §§

v. § ADVERSARY NO. 15-05047-cag§

BRIAN K. ALFARO, PRIMERA §ENERGY, LLC, ALFARO OIL AND §GAS, L.L.C., ALFARO ENERGY, L.L.C. §KING MINERALS, L.L.C. and SILVER §STAR RESOURCES, L.L.C., §

§Defendants. §

DEFENDANT BRIAN K. ALFARO’S MOTION TO STAYPROCEEDING DURING PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATION AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

COMES NOW Defendant Brian K. Alfaro and moves the Court for an order staying this case

pending the resolution of the criminal investigation of Brian K. Alfaro.

I.SUMMARY

During a break between the hearings held in this adversary proceeding on August 12, 2015,

counsel for Brian Alfaro was approached by special agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(the “FBI”) and the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and advised that Brian Alfaro was the

“target” of a criminal investigation commenced by the FBI and possibly the IRS. When asked as to

the scope of the investigation or the allegations surrounding same, the FBI special agent became rude

and refused to give counsel any more information regarding the investigation. Due to the ongoing

criminal investigation surrounding this adversary proceeding, Defendant Brian Alfaro must be

advised by counsel to assert the Fifth Amendment as to all questions posed to him in any discovery

sought by the Plaintiffs herein in connection with the hearing on the Preliminary Injunction, the



adversary proceeding itself or any deposition in this case. Accordingly, because of the commonality

of issues between this adversary proceeding and the lack of any disclosure by the FBI as to the issues

involved in the criminal investigation against Defendant Brian Alfaro, Defendant Brian Alfaro

requests this Court for a stay of these proceedings to allow resolution of the criminal component of

the case so as to avoid the debilitating disadvantage in the adversary proceeding the Defendant Brian

Alfaro will suffer by asserting the Fifth Amendment. As discussed below, there will be no prejudice

to Plaintiffs or the public by such a stay as this adversary proceeding has not gone past the initial

pleading stage. By virtue of the FBI criminal investigation of Defendant Brian Alfaro, the Defendant

Brian Alfaro is unable to meaningfully participate in this adversary proceeding, as doing so would

require Defendant Brian Alfaro to assert the Fifth Amendment in light of his status as “target” of an

ongoing FBI criminal investigation.

II.ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Fifth Circuit Authority Justifies The Stay Which The Defendant Seeks

A “target” of an investigation is “a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has

substantial evidence linking him/her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of a

prosecutor, is a putative defendant.” United States Department of Justice Manual, Section 9-11.150

(1992 supp.). In other words, a “target” is someone who is the subject of an investigation and

therefore there is the clear possibility he/she might be charged with a crime. Due to this “target”

status as outlined above, the Defendant Brian Alfaro must be advised by counsel to assert his Fifth

Amendment right against self-incrimination as to all questions posed to him by the Plaintiffs

otherwise, as such directly involves his individual involvement as well as his alleged involvement



as an officer and/or manager of Defendants Primera Energy, L.L.C., Alfaro Oil and Gas, L.L.C.,

Alfaro Energy, L.L.C.; King Minerals, L.L.C. and Silver Star Resources, L.L.C. (the “Current

Corporate Defendants”).

Courts have long been sensitive to the unfairness and threat to constitutional rights posed by

allowing criminal investigations and civil actions concerning similar claims to proceed at the same

time. Although it is well settled, a defendant in a civil action may assert the Fifth Amendment in

response to discovery and/or Order to Show Cause requests, that civil defendant nonetheless may

be subjected to two distinct forms of fundamental unfairness if forced to testify in a civil matter

while parallel criminal investigation is pending: (1) the impossibility of anticipating all of the types

of information which provides prosecutors with some “link in the chain of evidence” needed for the

criminal case (Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951)), and (2) the debilitating

disadvantage in the civil action the defendant will suffer by asserting the Fifth Amendment (See, e.g.,

London v. Patterson, 463 F.2d 95, 97-98 (9th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 906 (1973)).

Accordingly, federal courts consistently recognize that civil proceedings including discovery, should

be stayed in appropriate circumstances pending the resolution of a parallel criminal proceeding. See

United States v. Kordel, 397 U.S. 1, 12, n. 27 (1970); Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d

1198, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(noting that “it has long been the practice to ‘freeze’ civil proceedings

when a criminal prosecution involving the same facts is warming up or under way”); SEC v. Dresser

Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (in the case of parallel criminal proceedings, “a

court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings, postpone civil discovery, or impose

protective orders and conditions when the interests of justice seem to require such action”), cert.

denied, 449 U.S. 993 (1980).



Since 1979, the Fifth Circuit has held that a district court should stay a civil action when

proceeding with that action would force a litigant to choose between defending the case and

exercising the Fifth Amendment privilege. See Wehling v. CBS, 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir.

1979)(holding that a district court should abate discovery in a civil action when proceeding with

discovery would compel a litigant to choose between responding to the request and exercising his

Fifth Amendment privilege). Other circuits have joined the Fifth Circuit in holding that a

postponement of civil proceedings until the conclusion of the related criminal investigation is the

preferred alternative to the dilemma facing such defendants. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 836 F.2d

1468, 1476 (4th Cir. 1988)(stating Fourth Circuit rule as a “preference for stays” of civil actions),

cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1240 (1988); Kashi v. Gratsos, 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2nd Cir. 1986) (district

court exercised “sound discretion” in staying civil trial until U.S. Attorney declined to prosecute);

Texaco, Inc. v. Borda, 383 F.2d 607, 608 (3d Cir. 1967)(approving stay of civil antitrust action that

alleged same conspiracy as pending criminal action); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, 659

F.Supp. 628, 634 (D. Md. 1987)(recognizing a preference that a court stay civil proceedings when

there is a risk of self-incrimination by a party”).

An individual party to a civil action has, “in addition to his Fifth Amendment right to silence,

a due process right to a judicial determination of his civil action.” Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1087-88.

“The [Supreme] Court has emphasized that a party claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege should

suffer no penalty for his silence ....” Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1087-88 (citing Spevack v. Klein, 385 U.S.

511, 515 (1967)). A district court may not follow any procedure that “require[s] a party to surrender

one constitutional right in order to assert another.” Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1087-88. Forcing a litigant

to invoke the Fifth Amendment in the course of civil litigation amounts to a forfeiture of the due



process right to a judicial determination of the civil action. See Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1087-88; SEC

v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375-76 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States,

820 F.2d 1198, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Volmar Distrib., Inc. v. New York Post Co., 152 F.R.D. 36,

40-42 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). In Wehling, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court should have

postponed the civil action for three years, rather than placing the plaintiff in the position of having

to invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to discovery. See Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1088.

B. A Stay of this Proceeding is Warranted

The following factors are relevant in determining whether a stay is warranted: “(1) the extent

to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those presented in the civil case; (2) the status

of the criminal case, including whether the defendants have been indicted; (3) the private interests

of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously, weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused by

the delay; (4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; (5) the interests of the courts; and

(6) the public interest.” SEC v. AmeriFirst Funding, Inc., No. 307-CV-1188-D, 2008 WL 866065,

at *2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21229, at *6-7 (N.D.Tex. March 17, 2008) (quoting Heller Healthcare

Fin., Inc. v. Boyes, No. 00-CV-1335-D, 2002 WL 1558337, *1, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12743, *2

(N.D.Tex. July 15, 2002)).

1. The Overlap of the Proceedings

Overlapping issues in parallel civil and criminal proceedings support a stay. AmeriFirst

Funding, Inc., 2008 WL 866065, at *2-3, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21229, at *8. Whether the issues

in civil and criminal actions are related “demands a common-sense, fact-bound analysis.” In re

Ramu Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 318-319 (5th Cir.1990) (“The stay of a pending matter is ordinarily

within the trial court's wide discretion to control the course of litigation, which includes authority



to control the scope and pace of discovery.”). Where “no indictment has as yet been handed up

against [the defendant], the court cannot determine with certainty the degree of overlap between [the

civil] action and the criminal investigation.” AmeriFirst Funding, Inc., 2008 WL 866065, at *3, 2008

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21229, at *8; see also United States ex rel. Shank v. Lewis Enters., No.

04-CV-4105-JPG, 2006 WL 1064072, at *4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22065, at *10 (S.D. Ill. April

21, 2006) (finding the degree of overlap “a matter of speculation” where the defendant had not been

indicted).

Here, Alfaro has not been indicted and thus, the Court cannot determine with specificity the

degree of overlap between the instant civil action and the pending criminal investigation. Attempts

to ascertain the scope of the criminal investigation were unsuccessful. Despite the uncooperative

FBI Special Agent, it is “quite reasonable to assume that fraudulent conduct detailed in the [civil]

complaint will serve as the basis for criminal prosecution,” Shank, 2006 WL 1064072, at *4, 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22065, at *10, and that this overlap weighs in favor of a stay. The Fifth Circuit

found the factual nexus between civil and criminal proceedings sufficient where both sets of

proceedings involved the same underlying transactions, which, in Wehling, pertained to schools that

allegedly defrauded their students and the federal government. See Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1086; see

also Trustees of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mechanical, Inc., 886

F. Supp. 1134, 1139 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).

2. The status of the criminal case, including whether the defendant has beenindicted

“A stay of a civil case is most appropriate where a party to the civil case has already been

indicted for the same conduct.” Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund, 886 F.Supp. 1134, 1139



(S.D.N.Y.1995). “ ‘[A] defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination is a factor favoring a stay

only after that defendant has been indicted.’ ” Shank, 2006 WL 1064072, at *3, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 22065, at *9 (citation omitted). “[T]he weight of authority suggests that a stay is generally

not appropriate before indictment.” Shank, 2006 WL 1064072, at *3, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22065,

at *9; see also Dresser Indus., Inc., 628 F.2d at 1375-76 (“[T]he strongest case for deferring civil

proceeding until after completion of a criminal proceeding is where a party under indictment for a

serious offense is required to defend a civil or administrative action involving the same matter.”).

Alfaro has not been indicted, though he is the subject of a criminal investigation. The absence of the

indictment weighs against a stay. See Shank, 2006 WL 1064072, at *4, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

22065, at *11 (“[T]hat the [defendants] have not been indicted strongly supports [the plaintiff]'s

position [against a stay].”). The current status of the criminal investigation being unknown and

Defendant Alfaro not being indicted weighs against granting a stay of this proceeding.

The “Hobson’s Choice,”1 however, exists before or after indictment, as any testimony given

in a civil case before indictment may be used by the FBI. Controlling Fifth Circuit law in Wehling

dictates that a stay prior to indictment is proper, reversing the district court’s denial of a stay, stating

that denying the stay would require the plaintiff seeking the stay to “choose between his silence and

his lawsuit.” Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1086-1089. Such is the case here and the Court should grant the

stay preventing Alfaro from making such a choice.

1“Hobson's choice”, [Thomas Hobson 1631 English liveryman who required every customer to take the horse nearest

the door]: an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. MerriamCo., 1979.



3. The private interests of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously, weighedagainst the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay.

“Mere inconvenience and delay do not constitute undue burden and substantial prejudice

warranting a denial of a stay.” In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., No. CIV

AH-01-3624, 2003 WL 25508889, at *2 (S.D.Tex. March 25, 2003); Volmar Distrib., Inc. v. New

York Post Co., 152 F.R.D. 36, 40 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “[U]nder settled authority the Fifth Amendment

is the more important consideration.” Volmar, 152 F.R.D. at 40. In Trustees of the Plumbers &

Pipefitters, 886 F. Supp. at 1140, the court found that even though plaintiffs may have a legitimate

interest in speedy resolutions of matters and avoiding possible loss of evidence during the stay,

“[t]hese interests are trumped by defendants' interests in avoiding the quandary of choosing between

waiving their Fifth Amendment privilege or effectively forfeiting the civil case.” See also Wehling,

608 F.2d at 1088 (“[T]he [Supreme] Court has emphasized that a party claiming the Fifth

Amendment privilege should suffer no penalty for his silence.”). Delaying discovery will not cause

prejudice to the Plaintiffs but the absence of a stay would prejudice the Defendant Alfaro as

discussed hereinbelow.

4. A Stay Will Avoid Improper Sharing of Discovery Between the Plaintiffs andthe FBI's Criminal Prosecution.

A stay will avoid what some courts have warned is an “abuse of discovery” in which parties

use the broad provisions of civil discovery to widen the narrow provisions of criminal discovery.

Afro-Lecon, 820 F.2d at 1203 (warning against an unconstitutional expansion of discovery); Kmart

Corp. v. Aronds et al., Civ. No. H-96-1212 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 1996) (“Given the much more

restrictive discovery provisions available in criminal cases as opposed to those in civil actions, the

Court must be particularly sensitive of demands imposed on a defendant faced with parallel criminal



and civil actions.”). The public interest is best served through a stay.

5. The Balancing of Interests Requires a Stay as to Alfaro.

The balancing of interests in this case favors a stay. In determining whether to grant a

discovery stay because of parallel criminal proceedings, “the relative weights of the parties'

competing interests” must be considered and the rights of all parties “are taken into consideration

before the court decides whose rights predominate.” Wehling, 608 F.2d at 1088. A stay as to Alfaro

during the pendency of the criminal proceeding would not so prejudice any party to the civil

litigation as to warrant eviscerating Alfaro’s constitutional rights. Inconvenience and delay to other

parties do not provide a sufficient basis to make the showing of undue burden required for denial of

a stay. See Volmar, 152 F.R.D. at 40. “[U]nder settled authority the Fifth Amendment is the more

important consideration.” Id. In this case, a stay as to Alfaro need not otherwise prejudice the civil

litigants because Plaintiffs can still press forward with their claims and discovery against Primera

Energy, L.L.C.; Alfaro Oil and Gas, L.L.C. and Alfaro Energy, L.L.C.

Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment protects individuals against the required production of

documents, where the act of production is “testimonial.” Fisher vs. United States, 425 U.S. 391,

408, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1579 (1976). The records of a sole proprietorship are protected from disclosure

just as the records of an individual. Bellis vs. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 87-88, 94 S.Ct. 2179,

2182 (1974); In re Grand Jury Subpoena (Kent), 646 F.2d 963, 968 (5th Cir. 1981); Natural Gas

Pipeline of America vs. Energy Gathering, Inc., 86 F.3d 464, 469 (5th Cir. 1996). As the Fifth

Circuit explained in Kent, the testimonial component involved in compliance with an order of

production of documents “is the witness’ assurance, compelled by as an incident of the process, that

the articles produced are the ones demanded.” A defendant is protected from producing his



documents in response to a subpoena duces tecum, for his production of the documents would be

his admission that the papers existed, were in his possession or control and were authentic. United

States vs. Doe, 465 U.S. 605, 612-613, 104 S.Ct. 1237, 1242 (1984). This factor weighs in favor of

the stay of this proceeding and Plaintiffs’ attempt to gain access to the Defendant Brian Alfaro’s

bank records.

6. The interests of the court

In determining the propriety of a stay, a court can consider its own interests in efficient

administration and judicial economy. Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund, 886 F.Supp. at

1135. “[T]he Court has an interest in moving its cases ‘to an expeditious conclusion.’ ” Shank, 2006

WL 1064072, at *5, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22065, at *14 (quotation omitted). “[P]rudent docket

management weighs against” staying a civil action that has been pending for a lengthy period of

time. United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance, et al., No. 04-280(RWR), 2007 WL 1020808,

at *3, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23917, at *11 (D.D.C. March 31, 2007). Where “no indictment has

been returned and the civil case has been pending for more than a year, staying [a] civil action until

the completion of any criminal proceeding would lead to unwarranted delay of this action.” Westrick,

at *3, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23917, at *15.

The instant action case has been pending on the Court's docket for less than three months.

As the court pointed out on August 12, 2015, the monies paid to Defendant Alfaro more likely than

not have been spent such that any discovery in this proceeding of his bank account information

simply adds fuel to the criminal investigation. Given the amount of publicity this matter has

generated, it is a certainty that Alfaro will be indicted such that the possibility that this action could

be stayed for no reason is slight. See Shank, 2006 WL 1064072, at *5, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22065,



at *14 (declining to stay a FCA civil prosecution where the defendant yet to be indicted). Thus, the

Court’s interests are best served by staying this proceeding and this factor weighs in favor of a stay.

III.CONCLUSION

The six factors listed above weigh in favor of the Court granting a stay of this proceeding

pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. For all of those reasons, Defendant Brian K.

Alfaro respectfully requests that the Court grant his Motion For Stay During the Pendency of

Criminal Proceeding and for such other relief as is just and proper.

Respectfully submitted this the 17th day of August, 2015.

SCHEEF & STONE, L.L.P.2600 Network BoulevardSuite 400Frisco, Texas 75034Telephone: 214.472.2100Telecopier: 214.472.2150

By: /s/ Patrick J. Schurr J. Mitchell Little State Bar No. 24043788 Email: [email protected] Patrick J. Schurr State Bar No. 17853530 Email: [email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANTBRIAN K. ALFARO





CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was servedon counsel for the Plaintiffs, Brandon M. Barchus, FAULK BARCHUS PLLC, 800 Bering Drive,Suite 400, Houston, Texas 77057, Leonard Morales II, THE MORALES FIRM, P.C., 115 EastTravis, Suite 1530, San Antonio, Texas 78205, and Natalie Wilson, LANGLEY & BANACK, 745East Mulberry Avenue, Suite 900, San Antonio, TX 78212, via email [email protected],[email protected], and [email protected], upon counsel for the Debtor, thechapter 11 trustee, Jason Searcy, and on any other party requesting notice, via electronic means, onthis the 17th day of August, 2015.

/s/ Patrick J. Schurr






IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN RE: §§

PRIMERA ENERGY, L.L.C., § CASE NO. 15-51396§

Debtor. §______________________________________ §

§FREDERICK PATEK, GERALDINE §PATEK, JIM GREGORY, CAL CURTNER,.§LISA SIMPSON, JASPER CAMPISE, §KAREN SMITH, WILLIAM CRAWFORD, §MIKE COVINGTON, MARC KEESE, §MIKE MCPHERSON, ED MCPHERSON, §WESLEY CROW, DIETER JANSEN, §QUACKENBUSH PETROLEUM, §JAMES REILEY, BETTY REILEY, §RICK REILEY, GREG SHILTS, §JANA SHILTS, VINCENT J. GILLETTE, §MARJORIE A. GILLETTE, THOMAS J. §GILLETTE, EDWARD A. GILLETTE, §SHARON WALLS AND BUDDY WALLS §AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER §SIMILARLY SITUATED INVESTORS §OF DEFENDANTS’ “SCREAMING §EAGLE”, “MONTAGUE §LEGACY” AND “BUDA WELL” §INVESTMENTS, §

§Plaintiffs, §

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING - PAGE 1N:\pschurr\alfaro\removal\stay\stay order.wpd

15-05047-cag Doc#33-1 Filed 08/17/15 Entered 08/17/15 11:04:08 Proposed Order Pg 1 of 3

§v. § ADVERSARY NO. 15-05047-cag

§BRIAN K. ALFARO, PRIMERA §ENERGY, LLC, ALFARO OIL AND §GAS, L.L.C., ALFARO ENERGY, L.L.C. §KING MINERALS, L.L.C. and SILVER §STAR RESOURCES, L.L.C., §

§Defendants. §

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BRIAN K. ALFARO’S MOTION TOSTAY PROCEEDING DURING PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION

CAME ON for consideration the Motion of Defendant Brian K. Alfaro for an order staying

this case During the Pendency of the criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(the “Motion”) and the Court, after reviewing the Motion, is of the opinion that the adversary

proceeding should be stayed pending the resolution of the criminal investigation of Defendant Brian

K. Alfaro and the Motion should be granted. It is therefore

ORDERED that the Motion of Defendant Brian K. Alfaro to Stay Proceeding During

Pendency of Criminal Investigation be and the same is hereby granted; it is further

ORDERED that this proceeding be and the same is hereby stayed pending the outcome of

the criminal investigation of Defendant Brian Alfaro.

### END OF ORDER ###



Order submitted by:

Patrick J. SchurrSCHEEF & STONE, L.L.P.2600 Network Boulevard, suite 400Frisco, Texas 75034Telephone: 214.472.2100Telecopier: 214.472.2150Email:[email protected]



news, sports, business | expressnews.com - san antonio ......process right to a judicial...

Documents