TBCblog

Comprehensive coverage of the Texas Business Court

Operated by

Reese Marketos LLP

Dallas, Texas  ·  Complex Commercial Litigation

← The Bench
Portrait of Hon. Andrea K. Bouressa

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.

Source: txcourts.gov

Opinions by Judge Bouressa (1)

Derivative Action Valuation ×
2026 Tex. Bus. 67 Jurisdiction & Remand September 25, 2026

Evidentiary Proof Defeats Pleaded Amount in Controversy: Business Court Applies C Ten 31 Burden-Shifting Framework to Remand Derivative Action

In Runner Runner LLC v. BLPP Holdings, LLC, the Texas Business Court remanded a derivative action after finding that the removing party failed to meet his burden under the C Ten 31 three-step framework to establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million jurisdictional threshold. The Court held that when a non-removing party challenges jurisdiction and presents evidence that a lesser amount is readily established, the removing party must present controverting proof or face remand.

Mem. Op. Removal & Remand Section 25A.004 Amount in Controversy Derivative Actions Burden-Shifting Framework Opinion PDF ↓