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 (7)
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.