Business Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Pre-Effective Date Cases Under Plain Language of H.B. 19
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Judge Marialyn Barnard
In Morningstar Winans v. Berry, the Texas Business Court held it lacked jurisdiction over a removal petition for a lawsuit originally filed in 2022, concluding that Chapter 25A's removal procedure applies only to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The decision establishes that the Business Court's temporal jurisdiction is determined by the case filing date, not the date of underlying transactions or events.
Court Staff Summary
In this case, Plaintiff attempted to remove a 2022 suit to the Texas Business Court, and Defendant challenged the court’s authority to hear this case. Construing the plain language of H.B. 19, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the case because Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code and its removal procedure applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Morningstar Winans attempted to remove an existing lawsuit—originally filed in 2022—to the newly established Texas Business Court. Defendant Luke B. Berry, M.D., challenged the court's authority to hear the case, raising a threshold jurisdictional question about the temporal scope of the Business Court's removal jurisdiction under House Bill 19.
The Jurisdictional Challenge
The central issue was whether Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code, which establishes the Business Court and its removal procedures, applies to cases that were commenced before the court's September 1, 2024 effective date. This presented a question of statutory construction requiring the court to interpret the plain language of H.B. 19's temporal application provisions.
The Court's Analysis
The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the case. The court's reasoning turned on the plain language of H.B. 19, which limits the application of Chapter 25A and its removal procedure to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. Because the underlying lawsuit was filed in 2022—two years before the Business Court's effective date—the removal mechanism was unavailable to Plaintiff, regardless of whether the case otherwise satisfied the court's subject-matter and amount-in-controversy requirements.
The opinion reflects a textualist approach to statutory construction, declining to extend the Business Court's jurisdiction beyond the temporal boundaries established by the Legislature. The court treated the commencement date as a jurisdictional prerequisite rather than a procedural formality.
Practical Significance
This decision establishes critical guidance for practitioners evaluating removal options. The ruling forecloses any strategy to remove pre-existing litigation to the Business Court, even if the underlying dispute involves qualified transactions or meets the statutory amount-in-controversy threshold. Parties with pending commercial disputes filed before September 1, 2024, must continue litigating in their original forums—whether district court, county court at law, or statutory probate court—without access to the Business Court's specialized procedures and judicial expertise.
The decision also signals the Business Court's commitment to strict jurisdictional boundaries. The opinion demonstrates that the court will hew closely to statutory text when determining the scope of its authority, focusing on when the case was filed rather than when the underlying transactions or events occurred. This approach provides certainty for litigants and counsel: cases filed on or after September 1, 2024, may be eligible for removal to the Business Court if they meet the statutory requirements, while cases filed before that date may not.