We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Hon. Jerry D. Bullard
Judge · Seat 8A
Texas Business Court · Eighth Business Court Division (Fort Worth)
Biography
Judge Jerry Bullard serves on the Texas Business Court’s Eighth Division, which is based in Fort Worth, Texas but covers 18 counties in North Texas. Prior to his appointment, Judge Bullard was a shareholder and attorney with Adams, Lynch & Loftin, P.C. He has over 30 years of experience in state and federal court trial and appellate litigation. During that time, in addition to handling complex commercial litigation matters, Judge Bullard routinely represented and consulted with individuals and business organizations with respect to organizational governance, policy drafting, commercial transactions, and other operational matters. Judge Bullard is board certified in civil appellate law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, is a member and treasurer of the Board of Directors of the American College of Business Court Judges and serves on the Texas Supreme Court Advisory Committee. Judge Bullard is an active member of the State Bar of Texas and its Appellate, Business Law, Judicial, and Litigation Sections, the Texas Bar College, and the Tarrant County Bar Association. He has also served as a gubernatorial appointee on the Texas Juvenile Justice Board, a Section Representative on the State Bar of Texas Board of Directors, a member of the Texas Supreme Court’s Conduct Commission Procedural Rules Task Force, and a member of the State Bar of Texas Court Administration Task Force. Judge Bullard received a Bachelor of Arts from Baylor University and his law degree from The University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
Opinions by Judge Bullard (17)
Pre-Suit Demand Letters Establish Amount in Controversy for Business Court Removal Deadlines
In DrinkPAK v. PRIII Crow Building C, Division 8 remanded a commercial lease dispute after finding defendants' removal notice untimely under Section 25A.006(f)(1), holding that pre-litigation demand letters and the underlying transaction's monetary terms established the $5 million jurisdictional threshold well before the 30-day removal window expired. The court rejected defendants' argument that a generic Rule 47 pleading alleging damages "over $1 million" prevented them from discovering jurisdictional facts, emphasizing that courts may consider the petition as a whole, the nature of claims, the underlying transaction, and pre-suit correspondence when determining when a party "reasonably should have discovered" facts establishing jurisdiction.
Specific Jurisdiction Requires Claims to Arise From Texas Conduct: Business Court Dismisses Out-of-State Manufacturers in Lien-Priority Dispute
In Daimler Truck Financial Services v. Vanguard National Trailer Corp., Division 8 granted Indiana-based trailer manufacturers' special appearance and dismissed all claims for lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that plaintiff failed to establish its fraud, conversion, and declaratory judgment claims arose from defendants' conduct in Texas. The court found that while plaintiff alleged defendants engaged in a fraudulent MCO scheme that injured a Texas lender, the claims stemmed from defendants' California dealings with California entities, not from purposeful contacts with the forum state.
Derivative Standing Requires Contemporaneous Membership: Business Court Dismisses Claims After Buy-Sell Enforcement
In Crain v. Northern, the Business Court's Eighth Division granted a plea to the jurisdiction dismissing all derivative claims brought on behalf of three LLCs, holding that plaintiff Michael Crain lacked standing under Texas Business Organizations Code Section 101.463 because he was no longer a member when he filed suit following a court-ordered buy-sell transaction with an effective assignment date of December 19, 2024. The March 11 memorandum opinion reinforces the bright-line rule that derivative standing requires membership status at the time of filing, not merely at the time the underlying claims accrued.
Specific Jurisdiction Established Over Out-of-State Airline Based on Texas Operations Under Multi-State Alliance Agreement
In American Airlines v. JetBlue Airways, the Business Court of Texas denied JetBlue's special appearance challenge, finding that American had pleaded sufficient facts to establish personal jurisdiction over JetBlue in a dispute arising from the Northeast Alliance's profit-sharing agreement. The court held that JetBlue failed to meet its burden to negate all jurisdictional allegations despite arguing its Texas contacts were minimal.
Texas Shootout Provisions Are Enforceable: Court Orders Specific Performance of Buy-Sell Option Despite Breach Claims
In Crain v. Northern, Division 8 of the Business Court of Texas granted summary judgment enforcing a mandatory buy-sell option clause in LLC company agreements, ordering the offeree to transfer his 50% membership interests to the offeror despite claims of prior breaches and unclean hands. The court rejected arguments that alleged fiduciary duty violations or valuation disputes created fact issues precluding specific performance of the "Texas Shootout" provision.
Third-Party Beneficiary Status and Jurisdictional Retention After Claim Dismissal in Oil and Gas Waiver Dispute
In Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, the Texas Business Court sustained a plea to the jurisdiction, holding that a leaseholder was not a third-party beneficiary to a reciprocal waiver agreement between two operators. The Court further held it retains jurisdiction over the entire lawsuit after dismissing the leaseholder's third-party beneficiary claims, clarifying the interplay between standing and subject-matter jurisdiction.
Business Court Enforces Seven-Day Summary Judgment Evidence Deadline and Parses Expectancy Versus Reliance Damages in Oil and Gas Contract Dispute
In Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, Judge Bullard granted Octane's motion to strike untimely summary judgment evidence filed one day late and granted partial summary judgment on lost revenue claims, holding that the operator plaintiff lacks standing to recover lost production damages but may proceed on redesign costs and expectancy damages. The December 22, 2025 memorandum opinion underscores strict enforcement of Rule 166a deadlines and clarifies which plaintiff entities may recover which categories of contract damages in oil and gas breach-of-contract cases.
Contract Definiteness and Mutual Assent: Business Court Enforces Reciprocal Waiver Agreement in Oil-and-Gas Dispute
In Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, Judge Bullard granted summary judgment on liability for breach of a reciprocal waiver agreement governing off-lease penetration point permits, rejecting indefiniteness and exhaustion-of-remedies defenses. The December 22, 2025 opinion from Division 8 provides critical guidance on enforcing industry-specific agreements where one party performs but the other refuses reciprocal performance.
Legal Malpractice Claims Fall Outside Business Court Jurisdiction, Even When Fractured Into Alternative Theories
In Crain v. Northern, the Business Court's Eighth Division dismissed all claims against attorney-defendant Tyler Goldthwaite without prejudice, holding that legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising from an alleged attorney-client relationship lack subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court applied Texas's anti-fracturing rule to bar claims styled as breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and misappropriation when the crux of each claim was inadequate legal representation.
Retroactive Application of H.B. 40's Reduced Jurisdictional Threshold Permits Second Removal to Business Court
In OWL Assetco I v. EOG Resources, Judge Bullard held that the Texas Legislature's reduction of the amount-in-controversy threshold from $10 million to $5 million under House Bill 40 constituted discoverable "facts establishing the Business Court's jurisdiction" under Section 25A.006(f), permitting EOG to remove a previously remanded breach-of-contract action within 30 days of the statute's September 1, 2025 effective date. The decision clarifies that statutory changes affecting jurisdictional prerequisites can trigger the removal clock even after an initial remand.
Amount in Controversy Determined at Filing, Not by Future Legislation: Business Court Remands Oil & Gas Dispute Below $10 Million Threshold
In OWL Assetco1 v. EOG Resources, the Business Court granted remand after EOG removed an oil and gas contract dispute from Harris County district court, with OWL seeking compensatory damages exceeding $1 million for remediating three produced water spills and EOG counterclaiming for approximately $929,192 in liquidated damages. The court's forthcoming written opinion will explain in detail why it concluded the case should be remanded to state district court.
Kassam v. Dosani: Business Court Denies Severance and Rejects Jurisdictional Challenge Where Defendants Fail to Negate $5 Million Amount in Controversy
In Kassam v. Dosani, 2025 Tex. Bus. Ct. 25, the Business Court denied defendants' motion to sever individual and derivative claims involving three related LLCs, holding the claims were logically related and arose from common questions of law and fact concerning defendants' alleged concerted conduct. The court also denied defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, finding they failed to carry their burden to show the amount-in-controversy requirement was not satisfied.
Amount in Controversy Excludes Future Royalty Payments and Theoretical Rights in Remand Analysis
In Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian, the Business Court granted remand, holding that the amount in controversy for Section 25A.004(d)(1) jurisdictional purposes is limited to actual damages sought for past breaches—here, under $4.5 million in unpaid royalties—and does not include the purported lifetime value of disputed royalty rights under an ongoing agreement. The decision clarifies that the removing party cannot satisfy the $10 million threshold by aggregating theoretical future payments or the value of contested contractual interpretations.
Pleading Jurisdictional Facts Under Section 25A.004(d)(1): Business Court Denies Plea to the Jurisdiction in Oil and Gas Reciprocal Waiver Dispute
In Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, Judge Bullard denied Octane's plea to the jurisdiction, holding that Slant sufficiently pleaded that a reciprocal waiver agreement concerning off-lease drilling permits constituted a qualified transaction under Texas Government Code § 25A.004(d)(1) and that Octane failed to refute the existence of jurisdictional facts. The opinion clarifies the burden-shifting framework when a defendant challenges both pleading sufficiency and the existence of jurisdictional facts in the Business Court.
Business Court Remands for Lack of Qualified Transaction: Unconsummated Bids and Forecasts Insufficient to Establish Jurisdiction
In G-Force & Associates v. Bloecher, Judge Bullard remanded a trade secrets and non-compete dispute, holding that construction-project bids and revenue forecasts do not constitute a "qualified transaction" under Section 25A.001(d)(1) because they involve no consummated agreement obligating consideration of at least $10 million. The court further held that Section 25A.004(e) injunctive-relief jurisdiction is contingent on first establishing subsection (d)(1) jurisdiction.
Rule 91a Dismissal Standards Applied to TTLA and Fraud Claims in LLC Expulsion Dispute
In Tall v. Vanderhoef, the Business Court of Texas denied in part a Rule 91a motion targeting individual TTLA and fraud claims brought by an expelled LLC member, while granting a motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration of the underlying expulsion dispute. The court's forthcoming written opinion will address whether allegations of misappropriated distributions constitute property interests distinct from company assets under the Texas Business Organizations Code.
Business Court Holds Removal Unavailable for Cases Filed Before September 1, 2024
In TEMA Oil and Gas Company v. ETC Field Services LLC, the Business Court's Eighth Division granted remand of an oil-and-gas contract dispute originally filed in 2017, holding that Section 8 of H.B. 19 bars removal of cases commenced before the Business Court's September 1, 2024 operative date. The court rejected the defendant's argument that Chapter 25A's silence on pre-effective-date cases permitted retroactive application, finding instead that the legislature's plain language limited the court's jurisdiction to cases "begun on or after September 1, 2024."