TBCblog

Comprehensive coverage of the Texas Business Court

Operated by

Reese Marketos LLP

Dallas, Texas  ·  Complex Commercial Litigation

← The Bench
Portrait of Hon. Grant Dorfman

Hon. Grant Dorfman

Judge · Seat 11B

Texas Business Court · Eleventh Business Court Division (Houston)

Biography

Governor Abbott appointed Grant Dorfman to the new Eleventh Business Court Division in Houston effective September 1, 2024, and his colleagues elected him to serve as the Administrative Presiding Judge for the initial two-year term of the Court. Judge Dorfman previously presided over the 129th and 334th Civil District Courts in Harris County. In addition to his judicial service, Judge Dorfman worked as Senior In-House Counsel in charge of litigation for Nabors Industries, an oil and gas drilling contractor; as an Of Counsel attorney with Sheehy, Ware & Pappas; a mediator and arbitrator, and state court visiting judge; and, most recently, as the Deputy First Assistant to the Texas Attorney General. A native Texan, Judge Dorfman graduated from Brown University with an A.B. in Honors History magna cum laude and was admitted to Phi Beta Kappa. He also obtained a Master of Studies (M.St.) in History and Political Philosophy from Oxford University and a J.D. from the Yale Law School. He served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jerry E. Smith of the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, prior to taking the bench, practiced commercial litigation for ten years with two Houston law firms: Susman Godfrey and Ogden, Gibson, White & Broocks.

Source: txcourts.gov

Opinions by Judge Dorfman (1)

Hearsay Evidence Admissibility ×
2026 Tex. Bus. 32 Jurisdiction & Remand May 20, 2026

Business Court Rejects 'Springing' Qualified Transaction Theory in Master Service Agreement Remand

In Clean-Co Systems v. Enterprise Products Operating, the Business Court's Eleventh Division remanded a dispute over a $688,000 invoice, rejecting the defendant's argument that a 2003 master service agreement became a qualified transaction once cumulative payments exceeded $5 million. The court held that an umbrella agreement involving no consideration at execution could not retroactively satisfy the qualified transaction threshold based on subsequent, unrelated purchase orders spanning over two decades.

Mem. Op. Removal & Remand Qualified Transaction Section 25A.001(14) Master Service Agreement Series of Related Transactions Opinion PDF ↓