We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Attempting to reconnect
Hon. Patrick K. Sweeten
Judge · Seat 3B
Texas Business Court · Third Business Court Division (Austin)
Biography
Patrick K. Sweeten of Austin was appointed to the Texas Business Court—Third Division by Governor Abbott. He is a seasoned trial lawyer with over 27 years of experience litigating in federal and state court, both plaintiff and defense side, including as lead counsel in pharmaceutical, securities, multi-district litigation, voting rights litigation, and deceptive trade practices and common law fraud actions. Previously, he served as the Deputy Attorney General for Special Litigation and Chief of the Special Litigation Unit for the Office of the Texas Attorney General. While at the Office of Attorney General, he built a new division, oversaw more than a dozen large trial teams managing complex litigation impacting the State of Texas, and secured well over a quarter of a billion dollars in settlements and recoveries. He also served as the state’s lead counsel in defense of the 2014, 2017, and 2022 rounds of redistricting litigation, and in 2018 successfully defended the state against challenges to its century-old method of electing Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals judges statewide. He also successfully defended the State in approximately ten federal lawsuits seeking judicial modification of Texas election laws prior to the November 2020 election. Before his service with the Texas Attorney General, he was an associate and shareholder for close to a decade at Delano Law Offices, L.L.C. in Springfield, Illinois. Sweeten received a Bachelor of Arts from UT Austin and a Juris Doctor from St. Mary’s University School of Law.
Opinions by Judge Sweeten (3)
Employment Discrimination Claims Fall Outside Business Court's 'Internal Affairs' Jurisdiction
In Brown v. Exxon Mobil, the Business Court remanded a Texas Labor Code Section 21.051 race discrimination claim, holding that employment termination disputes—even involving executive compensation and RSUs—do not constitute actions regarding an organization's "internal affairs" under Section 25A.004(b)(2) or arise from a "qualified transaction" under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Judge Sweeten's opinion establishes that the Business Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over statutory employment discrimination claims despite their connection to corporate governance structures and equity-based compensation.
Third-Party Construction Subcontractor Claims Satisfy 'Qualified Transaction' Jurisdictional Test
In Cadence McShane Construction Co. v. Ryan BB Blockhouse Creek, Division 3 denied a plea to the jurisdiction challenging the Business Court's authority over third-party claims against 18 subcontractors in a $60 million apartment construction dispute. Judge Sweeten held that the subcontractor claims arose out of the same qualified transaction as the prime contract dispute and satisfied jurisdictional requirements, rejecting arguments that each defendant's claims must independently meet the amount-in-controversy threshold.
Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-September 1, 2024 Actions and Later-Filed Claims in Same Lawsuit
In Yadav v. Agrawal, Division 3 held that Section 8 of H.B. 19 bars removal of actions filed before September 1, 2024, and that claims added after that date remain part of the same "action" lacking Business Court jurisdiction. The Court remanded the entire case—including a corporate governance dispute over a closely held LLC filed May 1, 2024, and amended counterclaims and third-party claims filed October 4, 2024—to Travis County District Court.