We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Procedure & Practice
Rule 91a dismissals, TCPA motions, venue, discovery, and practice before the Business Court
Fifteenth Court Holds Arbitrator Must Decide Scope of Arbitration When Parties Delegate to AAA
Joel Reese | Sep 30, 2026
In consolidated interlocutory appeals from two Business Court divisions, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals reversed orders that limited and stayed arbitration of disputes between TrueAero's CEO and its former president, holding that when parties delegate arbitrability questions to the AAA, trial courts err by deciding whether claims under related contracts fall within the arbitration's scope. The court affirmed a temporary injunction preserving membership units pending the arbitrator's determination.
Rule 91a Does Not Require Dismissal of Fraud-by-Nondisclosure, Tortious Interference, or Aiding-and-Abetting Claims Where Pleadings Allege Sufficient Facts
Joel Reese | Sep 30, 2026
In Hinds v. Sandman Offshore, the Texas Business Court denied Rule 91a motions to dismiss fraud-by-nondisclosure, tortious-interference, civil-conspiracy, and knowing-participation claims arising from alleged self-dealing by a co-manager who recommended his own drilling company without disclosure. The court held that inaction constitutes adequate reliance for fraud claims and declined to hold that established Texas law precludes a viable aiding-and-abetting claim under Rule 91a's dismissal standard.
Fifteenth Court Holds Arbitration Delegation Clauses Trump Trial Court Scope Determinations in Multi-Contract Disputes
Joel Reese | Sep 30, 2026
In consolidated interlocatory appeals from two Business Court divisions, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals held that when parties adopt AAA arbitration rules, trial courts lack authority to determine which claims or related contracts fall within the arbitration's scope—that gateway question is delegated exclusively to the arbitrator. The decision reversed both a trial court's refusal to compel arbitration of a dispute over pledged membership units and another division's order staying an ongoing arbitration, establishing that delegation clauses strip courts of jurisdiction over arbitrability determinations.
Direct Versus Consequential Damages: Proximate Cause Challenge Reaches Only Specifically Pleaded Special Damages at Summary Judgment
Joel Reese | Sep 30, 2026
The Business Court granted Boeing's motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing all of SWAPA's specifically pleaded consequential damages—lost wages, lost dues, and attorneys' fees—on grounds that proximate causation could not be established as a matter of law. The court held that while proximate cause applies to consequential damages, it does not apply to direct damages, which need not be pleaded with specificity and therefore remain beyond the reach of Boeing's causation challenge.
Derived Judicial Immunity Shields Receiver but Not Receiver-Created Entities at Rule 91a Stage
Joel Reese | Sep 30, 2026
In Fischer v. Fischer, Division 8 of the Business Court of Texas granted derived judicial immunity to a court-appointed receiver who facilitated the sale of community property companies under a receivership order later vacated on appeal. The court denied Rule 91a dismissal for Fischer Seller, LP and Fischer Purchaser Holdings, LP, holding that the pleadings did not establish facts sufficient to extend immunity to these entities at the pleading stage.
Claim Preclusion Bars Refiled Knowing-Participation Claim Against Prior Party, But Not Against Non-Party Employee
Joel Reese | Sep 30, 2026
In CAM Industrial Solutions v. Brown & Root Industrial Services, the Business Court granted summary judgment on claim-preclusion grounds to a defendant sued in both a prior district court action and the current Business Court case, but denied summary judgment to a former employee who was a non-party witness in the first action and was not shown to be in privity with any party. The decision addresses whether a plaintiff can evade preclusion by filing a second suit one day before entry of judgment in the first.
Conversion Claims Cannot Reach Uncertificated LLC Membership Interests Under Texas Law
Joel Reese | Sep 30, 2026
In Carrington v. Corsi, the Business Court of Texas granted Rule 91a dismissal of plaintiffs' conversion claim arising from an allegedly wrongful transfer and dilution of their LLC membership interests, holding that Texas conversion law does not recognize uncertificated LLC interests as property subject to conversion. The decision applies the First Court of Appeals' reasoning in Bell v. Bay Area RV Parks and rejects plaintiffs' arguments where no physical certificates were alleged to have been issued or converted.
Dissent Argues Business Court Correctly Applied Rule 91a Standard in Attorney Immunity Case
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
In a dissent from a mandamus proceeding reviewing Business Court Division 11B's denial of a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, an appellate judge argues that the majority improperly lowered the threshold for dismissal when evaluating attorney immunity as a defense to tortious interference claims. Taking the plaintiff's allegations as true—that Jackson sought to oust Reynolds's CEO to secure the position for himself—the dissent concludes the Business Court properly denied dismissal because the pleadings preclude any finding that Jackson's conduct qualifies for attorney immunity as a matter of law.
Attorney Immunity Bars Tortious Interference Claims Against General Counsel Advising on CEO Termination
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals granted mandamus relief to Frank Jackson, a general counsel sued for tortious interference with a former CEO's $350 million employment contract, holding that advising a multi-billion-dollar company on terminating its CEO falls squarely within the attorney-immunity defense. The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to recharacterize Jackson's conduct as "business advice" rather than legal representation, emphasizing that the immunity analysis turns on whether the conduct is "the kind" attorneys undertake while discharging professional duties, not on how a nonclient labels it.
Fifteenth Court of Appeals Dismisses First Reported Derivative Action Appeal from Business Court Following Joint Settlement Motion
Joel Reese | Aug 05, 2026
In Firoz Dhamani v. Mustapha Oulad-Chikh, derivatively on behalf of Global Real Estate, LLC, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals granted a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice an appeal from Business Court Division 1A of Travis County. The March 26, 2026 memorandum opinion resolved an appeal from a May 23, 2025 order in a derivative action involving Global Real Estate, LLC.
Work Product Doctrine Does Not Protect Non-Lawyer Notes Lacking Attorney Mental Impressions
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Synergy Thermogen v. Blackbrush Oil & Gas, the Business Court held that notes of a telephone call between plaintiff's former employee and defendant's non-lawyer representatives are neither core nor protected noncore work product where they contain only factual summaries without attorney mental impressions and the requesting party demonstrated substantial need and undue hardship. The decision clarifies that even when an attorney directs a non-representative to take notes, the work product doctrine does not shield purely factual recitations from discovery.
Defamation Claims Require Objectively Verifiable Statements: Business Court Grants Summary Judgment on Integrity-Based Allegations
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, 2026 Tex. Bus. 2, the Texas Business Court granted AT&T's no-evidence motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's defamation claim, finding no evidence of a false, defamatory statement or that AT&T knew or should have known of its falsity. Fiberwave alleged that AT&T's email to solution providers—stating it was ending its relationship with Fiberwave based on integrity and doing the right thing—cunningly implied Fiberwave lacked integrity.
Mandatory Real Property Venue Trumps Forum-Selection Clause in Wastewater Disposal Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In NGL Water Solutions Permian v. Lime Rock Resources V-A, the Business Court granted transfer to Loving County under Section 15.011's mandatory venue provision for actions to recover damages to real property, finding that the dispute's essence concerned alleged wastewater migration damage to oil and gas wells and mineral interests located in Loving County. The court held that the mandatory real property venue statute prevailed over NGL's reliance on a Harris County forum-selection clause in the parties' Shut In Agreement.
Mirror-Image Rule Bars Declaratory Counterclaims That Merely Deny Plaintiff's Injunction Elements
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In CreateAI Holdings v. Bot Auto TX Inc., the Business Court of Texas granted a Rule 91a motion dismissing declaratory judgment counterclaims that sought only declarations that plaintiff could not prove elements of its injunction claim—imminent irreparable injury and absence of adequate remedy at law. The court held the counterclaims violated the "mirror-image" rule because they presented nothing more than a denial of plaintiff's pending claims and sought no affirmative relief independent of the underlying suit.
TCPA Motion to Dismiss Granted Against Defamation and Tortious Interference Counterclaims Based on Litigation-Related Customer Letters
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Local Marketing v. Bennett, the Texas Business Court granted a TCPA motion to dismiss counterclaims for defamation and tortious interference, holding that letters sent to customers describing a TRO in the underlying litigation constituted communications "pertaining to" a judicial proceeding under Section 27.001(4)(A)(i). The court found that counterclaim defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for damages or defamation per se with clear and specific evidence, and awarded attorney's fees to the movant.
Imputed Knowledge, Due Process, and Res Judicata: Business Court Addresses Entity Identification and Post-Bankruptcy Claims in Arena Partnership Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club, the Business Court's Division 1 addressed whether a redemption letter's technical misnomer defeated its effectiveness when the recipient entity's officers had actual knowledge, whether adding a party shortly before trial violated due process, and whether res judicata barred claims based on post-confirmation conduct regarding assumed bankruptcy contracts. The May 5, 2026 order clarifies imputed knowledge standards and procedural protections in complex partnership disputes involving multiple affiliated entities.
Shareholder Cannot Bring Individual Conversion Claim for Corporate Property Without Derivative Pleading
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Stratton v. Hogan, the Business Court of Texas granted a Rule 91a motion to dismiss a shareholder's individual conversion claim for physical-therapy equipment that the shareholder's own pleading described as belonging to the jointly owned corporation. The court held that injuries to corporate property must be brought by the corporation or derivatively on its behalf, and that the shareholder failed to plead either derivative standing or facts showing personal ownership of the allegedly converted equipment.
Business Court Exercises Discretion to Deny Attorneys' Fees Under Section 37.009 Despite Clear Victory on Merits
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club, the Business Court's 1st Division ordered each side to bear its own attorneys' fees under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 despite plaintiffs prevailing on all substantive issues in a declaratory judgment action concerning redemption of partnership interests in the American Airlines Center. The court exercised its equitable discretion under the statute, which permits but does not require fee awards based on what is equitable and just rather than prevailing party status alone.
Texas Fair-Notice Pleading Standard Distinguishes Federal 737 MAX Dismissals in Boeing Proximate Causation Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Southwest Airlines Pilots Ass'n v. Boeing Co., the Texas Business Court denied Boeing's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that federal 737 MAX dismissals based on attenuated proximate causation are not dispositive under Texas's fair-notice pleading standard, which—unlike federal pleading requirements—entitles plaintiffs to replead deficient claims before suffering adverse judgment. The court distinguished SWAPA's allegations that Boeing made direct misrepresentations during collective bargaining negotiations from federal cases involving indirect lost-wage claims by flight crew.
Rule 91a Motion Denied Where Partnership Dissolution Pleadings Satisfy Notice Standard
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Hensarling v. Carmichael, the Business Court's Fourth Division held it had subject-matter jurisdiction over a partnership dissolution claim because the plaintiff sought dissolution of the entire partnership, satisfying the amount-in-controversy requirement even without seeking monetary damages. The court also addressed whether a nonsuit filed two days before the hearing prevented it from ruling on defendants' pending Rule 91a motion to dismiss.
Business Court Interprets 'Responsible Third Party' and 'Harm for Which Recovery Is Sought' Under Chapter 33
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Preston Hollow Capital v. Truist Bank, the Texas Business Court interpreted Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 33's definition of "responsible third party," focusing on the statutory phrase "the harm for which recovery of damages is sought." Judge Whitehill's memorandum opinion addresses how this language determines which non-parties may be designated as responsible third parties in proportionate responsibility disputes.
Declaratory-Judgment Counterclaims Cannot Serve as Fee-Shifting Vehicles for Issues Already Joined
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In CRS Mechanical v. Norfolk Cold Storage, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment to dismiss defendants' declaratory-judgment counterclaim seeking declarations that no partnership existed and that mechanic's liens were invalid. The motion challenged whether defendants' requested declarations impermissibly duplicated issues already joined by plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims or sought relief regarding Nebraska real property beyond the Court's jurisdiction.
Rule 91a Dismissal Standards Applied to Veil Piercing and Individual Liability Claims in Acquisition Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Lensabl, Inc. v. RBH SPE One, LLC, the Texas Business Court's Eighth Division granted in part and denied in part a Rule 91a motion to dismiss, holding that fraud claims against an individual principal were adequately pleaded but dismissing breach-of-contract and veil-piercing claims for failure to state legally cognizable claims. The November 5, 2025 memorandum opinion addresses the pleading standards required to survive dismissal in a dispute arising from a $28.9 million acquisition agreement.
Judge Andrews Establishes Framework for Attorney's Eyes Only Designations and In-House Counsel Access in Discovery Disputes
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Westlake Longview Corp. v. Eastman Chemical Co., the Business Court of Texas, 11th Division, granted in part Eastman's motion for a two-tiered protective order with an Attorney's Eyes Only designation for commercially sensitive information, but declined to rule on which specific materials merit AEO protection or whether particular in-house counsel should have access. The Court held that both determinations require a balancing of competing interests based on specific, non-conclusory evidence that had not yet been presented.
Rule 91a Dismissal Standards Applied to TTLA and Fraud Claims in LLC Expulsion Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Tall v. Vanderhoef, the Business Court of Texas denied in part a Rule 91a motion targeting individual TTLA and fraud claims brought by an expelled LLC member, while granting a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration of the underlying expulsion dispute. The court's forthcoming written opinion will address whether allegations of misappropriated distributions constitute property interests distinct from company assets under the Texas Business Organizations Code.
Business Court Enforces Seven-Day Summary Judgment Evidence Deadline and Parses Expectancy Versus Reliance Damages in Oil and Gas Contract Dispute
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, Judge Bullard granted Octane's motion to strike untimely summary judgment evidence filed one day late and granted partial summary judgment on lost revenue claims, holding that the operator plaintiff lacks standing to recover lost production damages but may proceed on redesign costs and expectancy damages. The December 22, 2025 memorandum opinion underscores strict enforcement of Rule 166a deadlines and clarifies which plaintiff entities may recover which categories of contract damages in oil and gas breach-of-contract cases.
Post-Hearing Expert Exclusion Motions Must Be Timely Presented and Cannot Collaterally Attack Temporary Injunction Orders
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Safelease Insurance Services LLC v. Storable, Inc., the Business Court's Third Division addressed a post-temporary-injunction motion combining objections to the injunction order, a request to rule on expert exclusion, and a motion to reconsider. The case arises from a dispute over SafeLease's access to Storable's facility-management software platforms used by mutual self-storage facility customers, with SafeLease alleging Storable blocked access to benefit its competing insurance products while Storable asserted it was enforcing terms of use and mitigating security threats.
Trade Secret Privilege Waived When Not Asserted Before Discovery Ruling Under Rule 193.3
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In SafeLease Insurance Services LLC v. Storable, Inc., the Business Court of Texas denied reconsideration of a discovery order compelling production of a customer list, holding that Storable failed to preserve its trade-secret privilege under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.3(a) by raising it for the first time in post-ruling motions. The memorandum opinion addresses whether parties must affirmatively assert privilege claims in discovery responses rather than after an adverse ruling, and whether trade secrets may be discoverable when necessary for antitrust claims and protected by agreed protective orders.
Kassam v. Dosani: Business Court Denies Severance and Rejects Jurisdictional Challenge Where Defendants Fail to Negate $5 Million Amount in Controversy
Joel Reese | Jul 28, 2026
In Kassam v. Dosani, 2025 Tex. Bus. Ct. 25, the Business Court denied defendants' motion to sever individual and derivative claims involving three related LLCs, holding the claims were logically related and arose from common questions of law and fact concerning defendants' alleged concerted conduct. The court also denied defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, finding they failed to carry their burden to show the amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied.