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)
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.
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.
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.