We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Hon. Andrea K. Bouressa
Judge · Seat 1A
Texas Business Court · First Business Court Division (Dallas)
Biography
Andrea Bouressa was appointed Judge in the First Division of the Texas Business Court by Governor Greg Abbott on September 1, 2024. Prior to that, Governor Abbott appointed her to serve as the first Judge of the 471st Judicial District Court in Collin County, created September 1, 2019. She was subsequently elected to that bench and served a two-year term as Local Administrative District Judge. On the district court bench, she presided over thousands of civil disputes and resolved as many as 200 cases a month. In 2022, the Texas Aggie Bar Association named Judge Bouressa their Rising Aggie Lawyer. She is an active member of TABA and previously served as a Board Member and Treasurer for that organization. She is also a member of the Collin County Bar Association and the Curt B. Henderson Inn of Court, as well as the Collin County Women Lawyers’ Association which honored her with their 2023 Outstanding Jurist award. In private practice, she focused on business and commercial litigation and state court appeals. Judge Bouressa is a third-generation Aggie, with a Bachelor of Science in Sociology from Texas A&M University. She also holds a Master of Science in Sociology from the University of North Texas, and a Juris Doctor from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law. She and her husband of more than 20 years live in Collin County and have two daughters.
Opinions by Judge Bouressa (14)
Contract Ambiguity Survives Summary Judgment Where Competing Interpretations Both Find Textual Support
In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, Division 1 denied cross-motions for summary judgment on contract interpretation, holding that a residual compensation provision was ambiguous where both parties' readings found support in the text but neither fully reconciled all language. The court granted summary judgment dismissing all fraud claims—plaintiff's fraudulent inducement claim for lack of justifiable reliance, and defendant's counterclaims on no-evidence grounds and under the economic loss rule.
Partial Summary Judgment on Liability Granted Where Defendant Fails to Controvert Breach or Raise Viable Affirmative Defenses
In Cobalt Falcon v. AXS Investments, the Business Court granted partial summary judgment on breach of contract liability under Delaware law, holding that the defendant's undisputed cessation of required monthly payments established breach and damages as a matter of law, while the court left the amount of damages for trial and declined to resolve whether the absence of an acceleration clause limited recovery to pre-filing installments. The court also rejected the defendant's unconscionability defense, finding no evidence that a perpetual payment obligation expressly bargained for in exchange for perpetual rights was substantively or procedurally unconscionable.
Texas Fair-Notice Pleading Standard Distinguishes Federal 737 MAX Dismissals in Boeing Proximate Causation Dispute
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.
"Relocate to Dallas" Clause Ambiguous, Requires Jury Determination of Ongoing Residence Obligation
In Lunderby v. Dominium Development and Acquisition, the Texas Business Court denied cross-motions for summary judgment on whether an employee who moved his family to Minnesota while maintaining an Irving apartment breached a contractual obligation to "relocate to Dallas." The court held that "relocate" is ambiguous as to duration and permanence, rendering the scope of the employee's ongoing residence obligation a fact question for the jury.
Plain Language of 'In Perpetuity' Payment Obligation Survives Fund Closure Under Delaware Law
In Cobalt Falcon v. AXS Investments, the Texas Business Court granted partial summary judgment under TRCP 166(g), holding that a contract provision requiring monthly payments "paid in perpetuity (unless otherwise agreed)" unambiguously requires continuation of payments after closure of the fund that was the subject of the transaction. Applying Delaware law, Judge Bouressa rejected the defendant's argument that the payment obligation was implicitly conditioned on the fund's continued operation, finding the plain meaning of "in perpetuity"—"forever; without end"—controls absent ambiguity.
Business Court Confirms Arbitration Award, Holds Parties' Contract Delegated Arbitrability Questions to Arbitrators
In BNSF Railway v. Level 3 Communications, the Business Court granted a motion to confirm and denied a motion to vacate an arbitration award, holding that the parties' Master Right-of-Way Agreement and applicable law gave the arbitration panel authority to decide both substantive and procedural arbitrability questions. The decision reinforces the enforceability of broad arbitration clauses and the limited scope of judicial review when parties have delegated gateway questions to arbitrators.
Rule 166(g) Adjudication Requires Statutory Compliance for LLC Membership Claims
In Quintero v. Urban Infraconstruction LLC, the Texas Business Court's First Division used Rule 166(g) to adjudicate legal issues before trial, applying a standard akin to summary judgment where reasonable minds cannot differ on the outcome. The court ordered partial judgment after examining the pleadings, briefing, summary judgment record, and taking judicial notice of the parties' previous testimony.
Defamation Claims Require Objectively Verifiable Statements: Business Court Grants Summary Judgment on Integrity-Based Allegations
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.
Business Court Rejects 'Supplemental Claims' Theory in Calculating Amount in Controversy for Removal Timeliness
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.
Removal Deadline Runs from When Jurisdictional Facts Were Facially Pleaded, Not When Removing Party Calculated Them
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.
Limitation-of-Liability Clauses Must Be Read in Context: Business Court Distinguishes 'Arising From' and 'Arising Out of or Related To' in Tort Claims Analysis
In Fiberwave v. AT&T Enterprises, the Business Court's First Division addressed whether the parties' 2022 Alliance Program Agreement's limitation-of-liability provision bars Fiberwave's tortious interference, defamation, and business disparagement claims arising from AT&T's post-termination conduct. The court held that Section 18.6's bar on damages 'arising from such termination' does not categorically preclude tort claims where the question is whether the damages—not merely the complained-of acts—arose from termination itself.
Business Court Transfers Case After Parties Agree Claims Do Not Arise from Qualified Transaction
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.
Partial Removal to Business Court Rejected: 'Action' Means Entire Lawsuit, Not Individual Claims
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 Reaffirms Bright-Line Rule: Pre-September 1, 2024 Cases Cannot Be Removed
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.