Removal Deadline to Business Court Does Not Begin Before Suit Is Filed, Division 3 Holds
Judge Melissa Davis Andrews
Decided February 10, 2025
Jurisdiction & Remand
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.
Court Staff Summary
On a motion to remand, the Court holds that the 30-day period for removing an action to the Business Court does not begin before the action is filed. Because Plaintiff filed its notice of removal within 30 days after this suit was filed, the notice was timely. The Court also adheres to its previous holding that an action may satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional amount-in-controversy minimums even when no party seeks damages.
Background: Software Access Dispute in Self-Storage Insurance Market
SafeLease Insurance Services LLC provides insurance for self-storage facilities and their customers, relying on access to information maintained on facility-management software (FMS) licensed by defendants Storable, Inc. and related entities. SafeLease had accessed defendants' software as an authorized user on its customers' accounts without a separate access agreement with defendants. In late 2024, defendants began restricting SafeLease's access to one FMS platform, storEDGE. The parties dispute the reason: SafeLease alleges defendants are attempting to drive it from the self-storage insurance market to benefit their own competing insurance products, while defendants counter they are enforcing their software's terms of agreement and mitigating security threats posed by SafeLease's misuse of their software.
SafeLease filed suit in the 345th District Court in Travis County on December 30, 2024, seeking a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief to compel defendants to restore SafeLease's access. Defendants moved to remand, arguing removal was untimely and the case failed to meet jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirements.
The Timeliness Issue: When Does the Removal Clock Start?
Defendants contended that SafeLease's removal was untimely because it was not filed within 30 days of when SafeLease "discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, facts establishing the business court's authority to hear the action"—which defendants argued occurred before the lawsuit was filed, based on SafeLease's own pleadings showing pre-suit knowledge of all relevant facts. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the 30-day removal deadline cannot begin running before the lawsuit exists.
The Court's reasoning turned on statutory text. Both Section 25A.006 and Rule 355 require removal within 30 days of discovering facts "establishing the business court's jurisdiction to hear the action." The Court explained:
Before suit is filed, there is no "action" for the court to have authority over. When undefined, the Texas Supreme Court and this Court have construed the term "action" to refer to a lawsuit or judicial proceeding generally and the term "claim" to refer to an individual theory of liability or cause of action asserted within a lawsuit.
The Court cited its prior holdings that "[a] civil action is a lawsuit," which under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 22 "is 'commenced by a petition filed in the office of the clerk.'" Because SafeLease filed its notice of removal within 30 days after filing suit, the notice was timely.
Amount in Controversy Without Damages
The Court also addressed whether an action seeking only equitable relief can satisfy the Business Court's jurisdictional amount-in-controversy requirements. The Court adhered to its previous holding that an action may satisfy the Court's jurisdictional amount-in-controversy minimums even when no party seeks damages. This reaffirmation allows parties seeking injunctive or declaratory relief to access the Business Court without pleading monetary damages, provided the underlying controversy involves sufficient economic stakes.