Section 8 of House Bill 19 Bars Non-Consensual Removal of Pre-September 1, 2024 Cases to Business Court
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Judge Grant Dorfman
In XTO Energy Inc. v. Houston Pipe Line Company LP, the Business Court of Texas granted plaintiff's motion to remand a 2021 case that defendants removed in October 2024, holding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over cases filed before September 1, 2024. The decision turns on interpreting Section 8 of House Bill 19, which provides that "the changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024."
Court Staff Summary
This opinion addresses the removability to the Business Court of cases filed before September 1, 2024, when removal has been contested. The Court concludes that., in such circumstances, Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits Business Court authority to act to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024.
Background: A 2021 Dispute Over Winter Storm Uri Charges
XTO Energy filed suit in Harris County's 133rd Judicial District Court in 2021 against Houston Pipe Line Company, LP, ETC Katy Pipeline, LLC, Energy Transfer Fuel, LP, and Oasis Pipeline, LP. The dispute centers on natural gas transportation charges incurred during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. Defendants filed a counterclaim for monies allegedly owed under the parties' agreement, and the case generated extensive motion practice in district court, including two mandamus petitions currently pending in the First Court of Appeals. On October 1, 2024—one month after the Business Court became operational—Defendants removed the case to the Business Court's Eleventh Division. XTO moved to remand ten days later.
The Jurisdictional Question: Must Be Resolved First
The court emphasized that whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law that must be resolved before proceeding to the merits. As the opinion states, courts "may not assume jurisdiction for the purposes of deciding the merits of the case." The parties' dispute centers on interpreting Section 8 of House Bill 19, the Business Court's enabling legislation.
The Parties' Competing Interpretations
The parties agreed on basic principles of statutory construction—that courts should give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed in plain language and must presume the Legislature chooses its words carefully. But they diverged sharply on application. XTO contended that the statute's language unambiguously limits Business Court authority to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024. The opinion notes that Defendants' responsive arguments are presented in their brief, though the court's excerpt ends before detailing those arguments or announcing its conclusion.
The Court's Holding
The syllabus—provided for reader convenience and not part of the court's opinion—indicates the court's ultimate conclusion: "The Court concludes that, in such circumstances, Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits Business Court authority to act to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024." Accordingly, the court granted XTO's Motion to Remand, sending the case back to the 133rd Judicial District Court of Harris County.