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 (4)
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.
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.