We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Jurisdiction & Removal
Business Court subject-matter jurisdiction, removal, remand, amount in controversy, and qualified-transaction disputes under Tex. Gov't Code ch. 25A
Amended Petition Adding Publicly Traded Party After September 1, 2024 Does Not 'Commence' New Action for Business Court Jurisdiction
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to Kimco entities seeking to keep their case in the Business Court after being added as defendants via third-amended petition in September 2024, holding that a civil action 'commences' when originally filed, not when an amended petition adds a publicly traded company. The court rejected relators' argument that adding a publicly traded defendant after the September 1, 2024 effective date triggers Business Court jurisdiction, reaffirming its holding in In re ETC Field Services that removal or amendment does not commence a new civil action.
Removal Statute Does Not Apply to Pre-Effective Date Cases: Business Court Lacked Authority to Accept 2017-Filed Action
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief in In re ETC Field Services, holding that the Business Court properly remanded a 2017-filed breach of contract action because HB 19's removal provisions apply only to "civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024"—and removal transfers rather than commences an action. The court rejected ETC's attempt to remove a seven-year-old case just months before trial, establishing that the Legislature's choice of "commenced" forecloses removal of cases filed in district court before the Business Court's creation.
Fifteenth Court Holds 'Action' Means Entire Lawsuit, Not Individual Claims, for Business Court Removal Eligibility
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to relators seeking to remove derivative claims filed in December 2024 from a divorce action commenced in July 2024, holding that the term "civil action" in the Business Court Act's effective-date provision refers to the entire lawsuit—not individual claims added later—and thus the Act does not apply to any part of a case filed before September 1, 2024. The decision reinforces In re ETC Field Services and rejects arguments that later-added commercial claims could be severed and removed as a separate "action."
Mandamus Denied in Challenge to Business Court's Remand of Pre-Effective-Date Case
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied Synergy Global Outsourcing's mandamus petition challenging the Business Court's remand order, leaving in place the trial court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction over a case filed before the September 1, 2024 effective date. The brief memorandum opinion relies entirely on the court's reasoning in a companion case decided the same day, In re ETC Field Services, LLC.
Business Court Retains Authority to Reconsider Remand After Plaintiff Amends to Eliminate Jurisdictional Claims
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
In In re ColossusBets Limited, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief to defendants challenging the Business Court's remand order after plaintiff Jerry Reed amended his lottery-rigging claims to eliminate all allegations implicating the court's statutory jurisdiction over internal affairs and governance. The court framed the central issue as whether removal to the Business Court operates as a "one-way door" that prevents reconsideration even when a plaintiff eliminates all jurisdictional predicates through amended pleadings.
Fifteenth Court Confirms Business Court Jurisdiction Over Pre-Effective-Date Cases with Party Consent Under HB 40 Amendments
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
In Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals vacated the Business Court's remand order after determining that House Bill 40's amendments mean Section 8 of House Bill 19 is not a jurisdictional limitation when parties agree to remove a civil action commenced before September 1, 2024, and the case otherwise meets jurisdictional requirements. The appellate court remanded to the Business Court after the parties obtained permission to proceed under Section 25A.021, addressing a transitional question about pre-effective-date cases.
Pleading Jurisdictional Facts Under Section 25A.004(d)(1): Business Court Denies Plea to the Jurisdiction in Oil and Gas Reciprocal Waiver Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, Judge Bullard denied Octane's plea to the jurisdiction, holding that Slant sufficiently pleaded that a reciprocal waiver agreement concerning off-lease drilling permits constituted a qualified transaction under Texas Government Code § 25A.004(d)(1) and that Octane failed to refute the existence of jurisdictional facts. The opinion clarifies the burden-shifting framework when a defendant challenges both pleading sufficiency and the existence of jurisdictional facts in the Business Court.
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-September 1, 2024 Cases Despite Agreed Removal
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Bestway Oilfield, Inc. v. Cox, Judge Adrogué sua sponte remanded a four-and-a-half-year-old employment dispute removed by agreed notice in October 2024, holding that H.B. 19's plain text—"apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024"—unambiguously bars Business Court jurisdiction over pre-effective-date cases even when all parties consent. The court stayed its remand order pending resolution of the Synergy appeal addressing the same jurisdictional question.
Business Court Clarifies 'Qualified Transaction' Jurisdictional Test: Assignment of Promissory Notes Meets $10 Million Threshold When Contracted-For Interest Included
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In *Atlas IDF v. NexPoint Real Estate Partners*, the Business Court's First Division held that an action to collect on assigned promissory notes arises out of a qualified transaction under Government Code § 25A.001(14) where the assignment itself constitutes the transaction and the notes' aggregate principal plus contracted-for interest exceeds $10 million. Judge Whitehill's opinion establishes that "consideration" includes anticipated interest as part of demand notes' bargain and that the "amount in controversy" calculation includes contracted-for interest, not merely principal.
Perpetual Royalty Agreement Satisfies Qualified Transaction and Amount-in-Controversy Requirements for Business Court Jurisdiction
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Yaun v. Battle & Sands Energy Corp., Judge Dorfman denied a motion to remand, holding that a perpetual royalty agreement on frac sand sales constitutes a qualified transaction under Section 25A.004(d)(1) where the plaintiff may be "entitled to receive" consideration exceeding $5 million, and that HB 40's reduced jurisdictional thresholds apply retroactively to actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The court applied the C Ten burden-shifting framework and found the removing defendants' pleadings—combined with plaintiff's own evidence projecting $6.4 million in royalties over three years of a perpetual agreement—established at least the plausibility that damages exceed the jurisdictional minimum.
Personal Jurisdiction Requires More Than Investment in Texas-Based Company: Business Court Grants Special Appearance
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Riverside Strategic Capital Fund I v. CLG Investments, 2025 Tex. Bus. 33, Judge Whitehill granted a special appearance by nineteen out-of-state defendants, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish minimum contacts where defendants invested in a Delaware entity governed by Delaware law and made no purposeful contacts with Texas. The court rejected arguments that knowledge of the company's Texas operations, designation of a Texas-based agent, or participation in prior Texas litigation established specific jurisdiction over passive investors.
Section 8 of House Bill 19 Bars Non-Consensual Removal of Pre-September 1, 2024 Cases to Business Court
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In XTO Energy Inc. v. Houston Pipe Line Company LP, the Business Court of Texas granted plaintiff's motion to remand a 2021 case that defendants removed in October 2024, holding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over cases filed before September 1, 2024. The decision turns on interpreting Section 8 of House Bill 19, which provides that "the changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024."
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Trust Claims Arising Under Property Code Title 9 Absent Party Agreement
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Barrett v. Barrett, Division 4 remanded a trust dispute removed from statutory probate court, holding that claims arising out of Title 9 of the Property Code fall outside the Business Court's jurisdiction under section 25A.004(g) unless all parties agree to supplemental jurisdiction. The decision clarifies that removal under section 25A.006(d) is available only from district court or county court at law—not statutory probate court—and that trust-related claims cannot be recharacterized as governance disputes to establish Business Court jurisdiction.
Internal Affairs Jurisdiction Does Not Require Predominance: Business Court Retains Lottery Fraud Case Implicating LP Formation and Purpose
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Reed v. Rook TX, LP, the Business Court's Third Division denied remand and held that Section 25A.004(b)(2)'s internal affairs jurisdiction extends to claims concerning when a limited partnership was formed, whether it was formed for improper purposes, and whether a plaintiff can recover partnership proceeds from its partners and others—rejecting the argument that governance or internal affairs must be the predominant focus of the case. The ruling clarifies that jurisdiction exists when internal affairs are substantially implicated, even if they are not the only matters the action concerns.
Business Court Rejects 'Supplemental Claims' Theory in Calculating Amount in Controversy for Removal Timeliness
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Sun Metals Group v. Yu, the Texas Business Court denied reconsideration of its remand order, holding that all claims in an action removed under Section 25A.004(b) count toward the $5 million jurisdictional threshold—rejecting defendants' argument that certain claims were merely "supplemental" and should be excluded from the amount-in-controversy calculation. The court reaffirmed that "action" means the entire lawsuit, not individual claims, following consistent Business Court precedent and the Fifteenth Court of Appeals' holding in In re Durant.
Characterization of Natural Gas as Personalty Defeats Plea to Jurisdiction Based on New Mexico Real Property
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Targa Northern Delaware LLC v. Franklin Mountain Energy 2 LLC, Division 1 of the Business Court denied a plea to the jurisdiction in a breach-of-contract dispute over natural gas deliveries, holding that the case concerned severed natural gas (personalty) rather than subsurface mineral interests (realty) in New Mexico. The court concluded that any effect on New Mexico real property ownership was merely incidental and collateral to the core issue of which party first materially breached its contractual delivery obligations.
Business Court Remands Pre-Effective-Date Case Removed After September 1, 2024
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Energy Transfer LP v. Culberson Midstream, Judge Whitehill granted a motion to remand a case that was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, but subsequently removed to the Business Court. The decision establishes that the Business Court lacks jurisdiction over cases filed before its statutory effective date, even when removal is attempted after that date.
Business Court Lacks Authority Over Pre-September 1, 2024 Cases: Whitehill Grants Remand in Synergy Global
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., the Business Court of Texas granted a motion to remand a 2019-filed contract dispute, holding that H.B. 19, § 8's plain text restricts the court's authority to "civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024," precluding removal of cases filed in district court before that date. The October 31, 2024 opinion resolves a threshold statutory construction question about the temporal scope of the court's removal jurisdiction under Government Code § 25A.006.
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-Effective-Date Cases Despite Party Consent
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Jorrie v. AL Global Services, 2024 Tex. Bus. 4, the Business Court sua sponte remanded a 2018 commercial dispute removed from district court with full party consent, holding that Chapter 25A does not confer subject-matter jurisdiction over cases commenced before the Business Court's September 1, 2024 effective date. The decision establishes that the Business Court's statutory jurisdiction operates prospectively only, regardless of party agreement to transfer.
Pleading Amount in Controversy Suffices for Business Court Jurisdiction Absent Sham Evidence
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Kampmann v. Smith, Division 4 denied a plea to the jurisdiction challenging counts seeking declaratory relief and breach-of-fiduciary-duty damages in a dealership partnership dispute, holding that a plaintiff's allegation of damages exceeding the $5 million threshold satisfies Section 25A.004(b) unless the defendant proves the figure is a sham. The court rejected the argument that failure to quantify specific dollar losses defeats jurisdiction, distinguishing between merits questions (proving damages) and jurisdictional questions (alleging concrete injury traceable to defendant's conduct).
Forum-Selection Clauses in Operating Agreements Cannot Override Business Court Jurisdiction Absent Major Transaction Requirements
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In South Shore ER v. Bashiri, the Business Court confronted a motion to remand a corporate-opportunity dispute involving alleged diversion of plans to open a stand-alone emergency center in Manvel, Texas. The case required the court to evaluate whether an LLC operating agreement's venue clause could override removal jurisdiction and when the 30-day removal clock begins under the Business Court Act.
Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporate Agents Requires Allegations of Personal Tortious Acts, Not Imputed Corporate Conduct
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In CWK Management v. Maggi, the Texas Business Court granted a nonresident shareholder's special appearance, holding that specific personal jurisdiction does not exist where plaintiffs allege only that the defendant "concocted" or "orchestrated" a transaction through an LLC, without alleging personal tortious acts in Texas or seeking to pierce the corporate veil. The court rejected imputation of the LLC's contacts to the individual defendant, emphasizing that conclusory group pleading cannot satisfy the plaintiff's jurisdictional burden.
Employment Discrimination Claims Fall Outside Business Court's 'Internal Affairs' Jurisdiction
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Brown v. Exxon Mobil, the Business Court remanded a Texas Labor Code Section 21.051 race discrimination claim, holding that employment termination disputes—even involving executive compensation and RSUs—do not constitute actions regarding an organization's "internal affairs" under Section 25A.004(b)(2) or arise from a "qualified transaction" under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Judge Sweeten's opinion establishes that the Business Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over statutory employment discrimination claims despite their connection to corporate governance structures and equity-based compensation.
Partial Removal to Business Court Rejected: 'Action' Means Entire Lawsuit, Not Individual Claims
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. v. Navarro County Electric Cooperative, the Business Court granted remand, holding that removal under Chapter 25A means removal of an entire lawsuit, not individual crossclaims or counterclaims, and that the underlying suit's September 2022 commencement date independently foreclosed jurisdiction. The decision clarifies that actions commenced before September 1, 2024 remain outside the Business Court's temporal jurisdiction regardless of when new claims are asserted within those actions.
Business Court Holds Removal Statute Bars Partial Claim Removal and Applies Commencement Date to Original Petition
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Sebastian v. Durant, the Business Court remanded a derivative action after concluding that Section 8 of House Bill 19 fixes an action's commencement date at the filing of the original petition regardless of subsequent joinder, and that Chapter 25A permits removal of entire actions only—not individual claims. The ruling clarifies critical temporal and scope-of-removal questions under the court's enabling legislation.
Business Court Rejects 'Springing' Qualified Transaction Theory in Master Service Agreement Remand
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Clean-Co Systems v. Enterprise Products Operating, the Business Court's Eleventh Division remanded a dispute over a $688,000 invoice, rejecting the defendant's argument that a 2003 master service agreement became a qualified transaction once cumulative payments exceeded $5 million. The court held that an umbrella agreement involving no consideration at execution could not retroactively satisfy the qualified transaction threshold based on subsequent, unrelated purchase orders spanning over two decades.
Business Court Clarifies Amount-in-Controversy Requirements for Injunctive Relief Under Section 25A.004(e) and Adopts Burden-Shifting Framework for Removal Challenges
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox, the Business Court held that Section 25A.004(e)'s grant of jurisdiction over actions seeking injunctive or declaratory relief incorporates the amount-in-controversy limits of the underlying subsections—here, Subsection (b)'s $5 million threshold. The Court adopted a burden-shifting framework in which the party moving to remand bears the initial burden of showing the pleaded amount is fraudulent or readily established otherwise, while the party asserting jurisdiction bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial.
Pre-Suit Demand Letters Establish Amount in Controversy for Business Court Removal Deadlines
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In DrinkPAK v. PRIII Crow Building C, Division 8 remanded a commercial lease dispute after finding defendants' removal notice untimely under Section 25A.006(f)(1), holding that pre-litigation demand letters and the underlying transaction's monetary terms established the $5 million jurisdictional threshold well before the 30-day removal window expired. The court rejected defendants' argument that a generic Rule 47 pleading alleging damages "over $1 million" prevented them from discovering jurisdictional facts, emphasizing that courts may consider the petition as a whole, the nature of claims, the underlying transaction, and pre-suit correspondence when determining when a party "reasonably should have discovered" facts establishing jurisdiction.
Removal Deadline Under Section 25A.006(f)(2) Is Not a Prohibition on Early Removal During Pending TI Application
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Aspire Commercial v. Stephenson, the Business Court of Texas denied a motion to remand filed by defendant Christopher Stephenson, who argued that removal was premature while a temporary injunction application remained pending in district court. The court's ruling addresses the timing of removal when TI applications are under advisement and the standards for establishing the $5 million jurisdictional threshold.
Business Court Denies Plea to Jurisdiction in Real Estate Development Indemnity Dispute, Applying Traditional Amount-in-Controversy Analysis
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Pradera SFR v. American Housing Ventures, Division 4 denied defendant's plea to the jurisdiction challenging whether plaintiff's indemnity and contract reformation claims arising from a copyright infringement settlement satisfied the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold under Section 25A.004(d). The opinion applies Texas's well-established plea-to-jurisdiction standard to determine the Business Court's subject-matter jurisdiction over claims tied to a single-family rental development project and subsequent settlement agreement.
Specific Jurisdiction Requires Claims to Arise From Texas Conduct: Business Court Dismisses Out-of-State Manufacturers in Lien-Priority Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Daimler Truck Financial Services v. Vanguard National Trailer Corp., Division 8 granted Indiana-based trailer manufacturers' special appearance and dismissed all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that plaintiff failed to establish its fraud, conversion, and declaratory judgment claims arose from defendants' conduct in Texas. The court found that while plaintiff alleged defendants engaged in a fraudulent MCO scheme that injured a Texas lender, the claims stemmed from defendants' California dealings with California entities, not from purposeful contacts with the forum state.
Business Court Dismisses Trade Secrets Suit for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Defendant with Substantial Texas Presence
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In GoSecure v. CrowdStrike, Division 3 granted CrowdStrike's special appearance and dismissed claims arising from alleged 2011-2012 California trade secret misappropriation, holding that neither general jurisdiction (despite CrowdStrike's large Texas office and sales) nor specific jurisdiction (because claims did not "arise out of or relate to" Texas contacts occurring years after the operative facts) existed over the Delaware corporation principally based in California. The decision clarifies that substantial in-state business operations alone cannot support general jurisdiction absent principal place of business, and that specific jurisdiction requires a substantial connection between forum contacts and the operative facts underlying the claims.
Specific Jurisdiction Established Over Out-of-State Airline Based on Texas Operations Under Multi-State Alliance Agreement
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In American Airlines v. JetBlue Airways, the Business Court of Texas denied JetBlue's special appearance challenge, finding that American had pleaded sufficient facts to establish personal jurisdiction over JetBlue in a dispute arising from the Northeast Alliance's profit-sharing agreement. The court held that JetBlue failed to meet its burden to negate all jurisdictional allegations despite arguing its Texas contacts were minimal.
Business Court Finds Jurisdiction Over Aiding-and-Abetting and Intellectual-Property Claims Despite Absence of Standalone Causes of Action
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company, the Texas Business Court held that allegations of a former president's new company aiding and abetting his fiduciary breach satisfied Section 25A.004(b)(5)'s jurisdictional requirement, and that repeated allegations of misappropriated business information invoked Section 25A.004(d)(4)'s intellectual-property clause even without a standalone trade-secret claim. The court applied its balance-shifting framework to find the defendant's removal notice pleading more than five million dollars in controversy satisfied the amount-in-controversy threshold where plaintiff offered no rebuttal.
Third-Party Beneficiary Status and Jurisdictional Retention After Claim Dismissal in Oil and Gas Waiver Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, the Texas Business Court sustained a plea to the jurisdiction, holding that a leaseholder was not a third-party beneficiary to a reciprocal waiver agreement between two operators. The Court further held it retains jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit after dismissing the leaseholder's third-party beneficiary claims, clarifying the interplay between standing and subject-matter jurisdiction.
Partial Settlement Does Not Divest Business Court of Jurisdiction Once Properly Invoked
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Ornelas v. Herrera, the Business Court's Fourth Division held that agreed dismissal of claims against most defendants did not reduce the jurisdictional amount in controversy, which is fixed at the suit's commencement based on the plaintiff's pleadings. The court applied Bland ISD v. Blue to conclude that absent proof of fraud or sham pleading, the allegations in the pleadings control the jurisdictional determination.
Third-Party Construction Subcontractor Claims Satisfy 'Qualified Transaction' Jurisdictional Test
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Cadence McShane Construction Co. v. Ryan BB Blockhouse Creek, Division 3 denied a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the Business Court's authority over third-party claims against 18 subcontractors in a $60 million apartment construction dispute. Judge Sweeten held that the subcontractor claims arose out of the same qualified transaction as the prime contract dispute and satisfied jurisdictional requirements, rejecting arguments that each defendant's claims must independently meet the amount-in-controversy threshold.
Retroactive Application of H.B. 40's Reduced Jurisdictional Threshold Permits Second Removal to Business Court
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In OWL Assetco I v. EOG Resources, Judge Bullard held that the Texas Legislature's reduction of the amount-in-controversy threshold from $10 million to $5 million under House Bill 40 constituted discoverable "facts establishing the Business Court's jurisdiction" under Section 25A.006(f), permitting EOG to remove a previously remanded breach-of-contract action within 30 days of the statute's September 1, 2025 effective date. The decision clarifies that statutory changes affecting jurisdictional prerequisites can trigger the removal clock even after an initial remand.
Business Court Retains Jurisdiction Over LLC Winding-Up Despite Parallel District Court Litigation
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Martens v. Lamkin Land & Cattle Company, Judge Stagner rejected defendants' attempt to dismiss or abate a Business Court action seeking involuntary winding-up of an LLC under Section 11.314, holding that the claim was not compulsory in earlier-filed district court litigation over sale proceeds and that the two cases were not sufficiently interrelated to invoke dominant jurisdiction. The decision clarifies that Business Court jurisdiction over entity governance disputes is not defeated by parallel contract claims in traditional courts.
Amount in Controversy Determined at Filing, Not by Future Legislation: Business Court Remands Oil & Gas Dispute Below $10 Million Threshold
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In OWL Assetco1 v. EOG Resources, the Business Court granted remand after EOG removed an oil and gas contract dispute from Harris County district court, with OWL seeking compensatory damages exceeding $1 million for remediating three produced water spills and EOG counterclaiming for approximately $929,192 in liquidated damages. The court's forthcoming written opinion will explain in detail why it concluded the case should be remanded to state district court.
Amount-in-Controversy Pleading Standards: Business Court Permits Repleading After Initial Jurisdictional Deficiency
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In M&M Livestock v. Robinson, the Business Court of Texas denied a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold after initially deferring ruling to permit plaintiffs to amend their petition and provide additional jurisdictional briefing. The memorandum opinion addresses the pleading requirements for derivative and internal-affairs claims under Section 25A.004(b), requiring specific factual allegations supporting damages calculations rather than conclusory statements.
Business Court Transfers Case After Parties Agree Claims Do Not Arise from Qualified Transaction
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In BP Energy Company v. Cox, 2025 Tex. Bus. 27, Judge Bouressa granted BP Energy's unopposed motion to transfer the case to Potter County district court after both parties represented that the claims did not meet the jurisdictional criteria of Texas Government Code Section 25A.004(d)(1). The memorandum opinion demonstrates the Business Court's willingness to accept mutual party representations on jurisdictional defects and transfer cases based on an unopposed motion even when the parties disagree on the motion's precise language.
Legal Malpractice Claims Fall Outside Business Court Jurisdiction, Even When Fractured Into Alternative Theories
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Crain v. Northern, the Business Court's Eighth Division dismissed all claims against attorney-defendant Tyler Goldthwaite without prejudice, holding that legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising from an alleged attorney-client relationship lack subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court applied Texas's anti-fracturing rule to bar claims styled as breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and misappropriation when the crux of each claim was inadequate legal representation.
Business Court Clarifies Removal Procedure, Internal Affairs Jurisdiction, and Amount-in-Controversy Scope in Real Estate Development Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Chaudhry v. Stillwater Capital Investments, Division 1 held that defendants need not file separate removal notices to benefit from removal, that fraud-in-the-inducement claims regarding LLC company agreements fall within the court's subject matter jurisdiction over internal affairs and governing documents, and that the amount-in-controversy requirement applies case-wide including counterclaims. The court also rejected non-statutory grounds for declining to exercise subject matter jurisdiction.
Personal Jurisdiction Requires Purposeful Forum Contacts Attributable to the Specific Defendant, Not Group Pleading
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation, the Business Court granted special appearances by Angelo Acconcia and Blackstone Inc., holding that plaintiffs failed to establish that claims arose from Acconcia's purposeful contacts with Texas and that his forum contacts were attributable to a different entity, not Blackstone Inc. The court rejected group pleading and required individualized jurisdictional analysis for each defendant, dismissing claims against both defendants for lack of specific personal jurisdiction.
Amount in Controversy Excludes Future Royalty Payments and Theoretical Rights in Remand Analysis
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian, the Business Court granted remand, holding that the amount in controversy for Section 25A.004(d)(1) jurisdictional purposes is limited to actual damages sought for past breaches—here, under $4.5 million in unpaid royalties—and does not include the purported lifetime value of disputed royalty rights under an ongoing agreement. The decision clarifies that the removing party cannot satisfy the $10 million threshold by aggregating theoretical future payments or the value of contested contractual interpretations.
Fiduciary Shield Doctrine Protects Out-of-State Officer from Personal Jurisdiction in Real Estate Joint Venture Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
The Business Court granted a California resident's special appearance and dismissed third-party claims without prejudice, holding that respondents failed to plead or prove sufficient Texas contacts to support personal jurisdiction over the officer who allegedly acted solely in his corporate capacity. The court applied the fiduciary shield doctrine despite allegations of fraud and misrepresentation in connection with a failed joint venture to acquire Princeton, Texas real property.
Business Court Remands for Lack of Qualified Transaction: Unconsummated Bids and Forecasts Insufficient to Establish Jurisdiction
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In G-Force & Associates v. Bloecher, Judge Bullard remanded a trade secrets and non-compete dispute, holding that construction-project bids and revenue forecasts do not constitute a "qualified transaction" under Section 25A.001(d)(1) because they involve no consummated agreement obligating consideration of at least $10 million. The court further held that Section 25A.004(e) injunctive-relief jurisdiction is contingent on first establishing subsection (d)(1) jurisdiction.
Plaintiff Successfully Pleads Out of Business Court Jurisdiction by Amending Away Governance Claims
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Reed v. Rook TX, Division 3 granted plaintiff's renewed motion to remand after he strategically amended his Fourth Amended Petition to eliminate all governance, governing-document, and internal-affairs allegations that had initially supported the Court's jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(b)(2). The Court held it lacked supplemental jurisdiction without plaintiff's consent, qualified-transaction jurisdiction because consideration fell below the statutory minimum, and trade-regulation jurisdiction because negligence per se constitutes a tort claim rather than a trade-regulation claim.
Post-Amendment Removal Fails: Business Court Reaffirms September 1, 2024 Commencement Date Controls Jurisdiction
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In In Re J.W.B. Trust of 2007, Judge Barnard remanded a trust dispute originally filed in probate court in February 2024, holding that a February 2025 amended petition adding a corporate defendant and new claims after the Business Court's effective date did not commence a new action for purposes of HB 19's September 1, 2024 jurisdictional threshold. The decision aligns with ETC Field Services and Sebastian, rejecting arguments that post-effective-date amendments or new parties trigger Business Court jurisdiction.
Sham Pleading Standard Requires Evidence of Fraud to Challenge Amount in Controversy
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In ET Gathering & Processing LLC v. Tellurian Production LLC, Judge Barnard denied Tellurian's plea to the jurisdiction challenging whether the amount in controversy exceeded the Business Court's $10 million threshold, holding that Tellurian failed to produce evidence that ET Gathering's jurisdictional allegations were fraudulent or a sham. The court reaffirmed that under Texas's plea to the jurisdiction standard, a plaintiff's pleadings are determinative unless the defendant specifically proves the amount was pleaded merely as a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining jurisdiction.
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-September 1, 2024 Actions and Later-Filed Claims in Same Lawsuit
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Yadav v. Agrawal, Division 3 held that Section 8 of H.B. 19 bars removal of actions filed before September 1, 2024, and that claims added after that date remain part of the same "action" lacking Business Court jurisdiction. The Court remanded the entire case—including a corporate governance dispute over a closely held LLC filed May 1, 2024, and amended counterclaims and third-party claims filed October 4, 2024—to Travis County District Court.
Removal Deadline Runs from When Jurisdictional Facts Were Facially Pleaded, Not When Removing Party Calculated Them
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Sun Metals Group v. Yu, the Business Court remanded an action because defendants removed 20 days after the jurisdictional facts became facially evident in the pleadings. The decision clarifies that Section 25A.006(f)(1)(B)'s 30-day removal window opens when a party reasonably should have discovered jurisdictional facts from the face of the pleadings, not when the party actually performs the calculation.
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-September 1, 2024 Actions Despite Post-Effective Date Consent Agreement
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures, LLC, the Texas Business Court held it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over actions commenced before September 1, 2024, even where parties executed a post-effective date written agreement purporting to confer jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(d). The Court remanded the case to district court, certifying the controlling question for permissive interlocutory appeal and staying the remand pending appellate resolution.
Post-Effective-Date Joinder of Publicly Traded Defendant Does Not Confer Removal Jurisdiction Over Pre-Effective-Date Actions
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Case No. 24-BC11A-0013, the Texas Business Court entered an order on February 25, 2025, in a dispute involving Cypress Town Center, Ltd. and Kimco entities. The filing represents one of the early jurisdictional determinations by the newly established Business Court, though the substantive content of the court's ruling has not been made publicly available.
Removal Deadline to Business Court Does Not Begin Before Suit Is Filed, Division 3 Holds
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In SafeLease Insurance Services LLC v. Storable, Inc., the Business Court denied a motion to remand, holding that the 30-day removal period under Section 25A.006 and Rule 355 does not begin running before the lawsuit is filed, even when the removing party knew all jurisdictional facts earlier. The Court also reaffirmed that actions seeking only equitable relief can satisfy the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement without any party seeking damages.
Filing an Answer in One Texas Court Constitutes Consent to Personal Jurisdiction Statewide for the Same Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP v. Primexx Energy Corporation, the Texas Business Court denied special appearances by nine Blackstone-affiliated defendants, holding that filing an answer without a special appearance in an earlier Dallas County suit involving the same dispute constituted consent to personal jurisdiction in Texas for a subsequently filed Business Court action. The ruling establishes that consent to litigate a dispute extends to the state as a whole, not merely to a particular court within the state.
Business Court Reaffirms Bright-Line Rule: Pre-September 1, 2024 Cases Cannot Be Removed
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Seter v. Westdale Asset Management, Judge Bouressa granted remand of a case removed from Dallas County Court at Law, holding that the Business Court lacks jurisdiction over actions commenced before September 1, 2024. The decision marks the seventh remand order applying the statutory effective date as a jurisdictional bar, with the court expressly rejecting defendants' arguments that the prior six remand decisions were wrongly decided.
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-Effective Date Cases Under Plain Language of H.B. 19
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Morningstar Winans v. Berry, the Texas Business Court held it lacked jurisdiction over a removal petition for a lawsuit originally filed in 2022, concluding that Chapter 25A's removal procedure applies only to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The decision establishes that the Business Court's temporal jurisdiction is determined by the case filing date, not the date of underlying transactions or events.
Business Court Holds Removal Unavailable for Cases Filed Before September 1, 2024
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In TEMA Oil and Gas Company v. ETC Field Services LLC, the Business Court's Eighth Division granted remand of an oil-and-gas contract dispute originally filed in 2017, holding that Section 8 of H.B. 19 bars removal of cases commenced before the Business Court's September 1, 2024 operative date. The court rejected the defendant's argument that Chapter 25A's silence on pre-effective-date cases permitted retroactive application, finding instead that the legislature's plain language limited the court's jurisdiction to cases "begun on or after September 1, 2024."