We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Hon. Melissa Davis Andrews
Judge · Seat 3A
Texas Business Court · Third Business Court Division (Austin)
Biography
Melissa Andrews is a judge on the Texas Business Court, where she serves in the Third Division in Austin, Texas. Judge Andrews is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Before coming to the bench, she focused her legal practice on appellate briefing and oral argument, strategic dispositive motions, expert challenges, preservation of error, and jury charges. She has represented clients in the United States Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of Texas, several United States Courts of Appeals, and trial and appellate courts across the county. She also previously worked at the Supreme Court of Texas as an attorney for Justice Jeff Boyd and a law clerk for Justice Don Willett (now serving on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), as well as at the First Court of Appeals as an attorney for Justice Harvey Brown. She is currently the immediate past Chair of the Austin Bar Association’s Civil Appellate Section. She also serves on the Texas Board of Legal Specialization’s Advisory Commissions for Civil Appellate Law as well as for Judicial Administration. She is a frequent CLE presenter and has authored several law review articles. She received her Juris Doctorate from the University of Texas School of Law, where she was a member of the Texas Law Review, served as a Teaching Quizmaster, and graduated with honors. She received her Bachelor of Science degree from Texas A&M University, where she graduated magna cum laude.
Opinions by Judge Andrews (5)
Business Court Dismisses Trade Secrets Suit for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Defendant with Substantial Texas Presence
In GoSecure v. CrowdStrike, Division 3 granted CrowdStrike's special appearance and dismissed claims arising from alleged 2011-2012 California trade secret misappropriation, holding that neither general jurisdiction (despite CrowdStrike's large Texas office and sales) nor specific jurisdiction (because claims did not "arise out of or relate to" Texas contacts occurring years after the operative facts) existed over the Delaware corporation principally based in California. The decision clarifies that substantial in-state business operations alone cannot support general jurisdiction absent principal place of business, and that specific jurisdiction requires a substantial connection between forum contacts and the operative facts underlying the claims.
Plaintiff Successfully Pleads Out of Business Court Jurisdiction by Amending Away Governance Claims
In Reed v. Rook TX, Division 3 granted plaintiff's renewed motion to remand after he strategically amended his Fourth Amended Petition to eliminate all governance, governing-document, and internal-affairs allegations that had initially supported the Court's jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(b)(2). The Court held it lacked supplemental jurisdiction without plaintiff's consent, qualified-transaction jurisdiction because consideration fell below the statutory minimum, and trade-regulation jurisdiction because negligence per se constitutes a tort claim rather than a trade-regulation claim.
Internal Affairs Jurisdiction Does Not Require Predominance: Business Court Retains Lottery Fraud Case Implicating LP Formation and Purpose
In Reed v. Rook TX, LP, the Business Court's Third Division denied remand and held that Section 25A.004(b)(2)'s internal affairs jurisdiction extends to claims concerning when a limited partnership was formed, whether it was formed for improper purposes, and whether a plaintiff can recover partnership proceeds from its partners and others—rejecting the argument that governance or internal affairs must be the predominant focus of the case. The ruling clarifies that jurisdiction exists when internal affairs are substantially implicated, even if they are not the only matters the action concerns.
Removal Deadline to Business Court Does Not Begin Before Suit Is Filed, Division 3 Holds
In SafeLease Insurance Services LLC v. Storable, Inc., the Business Court denied a motion to remand, holding that the 30-day removal period under Section 25A.006 and Rule 355 does not begin running before the lawsuit is filed, even when the removing party knew all jurisdictional facts earlier. The Court also reaffirmed that actions seeking only equitable relief can satisfy the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirement without any party seeking damages.
Business Court Clarifies Amount-in-Controversy Requirements for Injunctive Relief Under Section 25A.004(e) and Adopts Burden-Shifting Framework for Removal Challenges
In C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox, the Business Court held that Section 25A.004(e)'s grant of jurisdiction over actions seeking injunctive or declaratory relief incorporates the amount-in-controversy limits of the underlying subsections—here, Subsection (b)'s $5 million threshold. The Court adopted a burden-shifting framework in which the party moving to remand bears the initial burden of showing the pleaded amount is fraudulent or readily established otherwise, while the party asserting jurisdiction bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial.