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 (5)
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.
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.