Post-Amendment Removal Fails: Business Court Reaffirms September 1, 2024 Commencement Date Controls Jurisdiction
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Judge Marialyn Barnard
In In Re J.W.B. Trust of 2007, Judge Barnard remanded a trust dispute originally filed in probate court in February 2024, holding that a February 2025 amended petition adding a corporate defendant and new claims after the Business Court's effective date did not commence a new action for purposes of HB 19's September 1, 2024 jurisdictional threshold. The decision aligns with ETC Field Services and Sebastian, rejecting arguments that post-effective-date amendments or new parties trigger Business Court jurisdiction.
Court Staff Summary
This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case that was filed in statutory probate court before September 1, 2024, but added a new defendant and corporate claims after September 1, 2024. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the entire action commenced prior to September 1, 2024; it therefore remanded the case to the probate court.
Background: Trust Dispute Evolves Into Corporate Claims
Jason Berridge, acting as next friend for his three children, filed suit on February 20, 2024, in Bexar County Probate Court No. 1 against Joel Lee-Eric Jesse, individually and as trustee of three trusts established between 2007 and 2012 as part of the children's grandfather's estate plan. The original petition alleged Jesse violated his fiduciary duties as trustee by failing to distribute mandatory trust income from stock ownership in the grandfather's company, seeking damages, removal of the trustee, and attorney's fees under Texas Estates Code section 32.007. On February 3, 2025—five months after the Business Court opened—Berridge filed an amended petition adding Berridge Manufacturing, Inc. (BMC) as a defendant and asserting corporate fiduciary duty claims, constructive trust, and disgorgement remedies. BMC removed the case to the Business Court on March 5, 2025, invoking the court's original and supplemental jurisdiction over the newly added corporate claims.
The Jurisdictional Question: Does Amendment Commence a New Action?
The central issue was whether adding a corporate defendant and corporate claims after September 1, 2024 commenced a new "civil action" within the meaning of Section 8 of House Bill 19, which provides: "The changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024." BMC argued the amended petition's post-effective-date corporate claims fell within the Business Court's jurisdiction under Government Code sections 25A.004(b)(2), (4), (5), and (6). Berridge objected, contending the entire action commenced in February 2024 and removal was therefore improper.
The Court's Analysis: Commencement Means Filing, Not Amendment
Judge Barnard sustained the objection and ordered remand, applying the reasoning from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals' recent decision in ETC Field Services, LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Company, 2025 WL 582317 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. Feb. 21, 2025). The court quoted ETC Field Services directly:
The question here is whether a civil action filed before [September 1, 2024] in a local trial court could properly be removed to the business court after that date. We hold it cannot, since removal does not 'commence' a new action in the business court after the Act's effective date, but simply transfers a pre-existing one.
Judge Barnard emphasized that "'[c]ommence means to 'begin' or 'start,' [and] the Texas rules of procedure use the term in the precise context of starting a new lawsuit.'" The court concluded: "This lawsuit started on February 20, 2024, when Plaintiff filed its original petition in Bexar County Probate Court No. 1." The opinion aligned with the Business Court's prior holding in Sebastian v. Durant, 2025 Tex. Bus. 4 (Feb. 4, 2025), which held that "subsequent amendments that added new claims and/or parties after September 1, 2024, do not determine when an action commences." Judge Barnard distinguished the cases BMC relied upon, noting Sebastian had already addressed and rejected those arguments.
Practical Significance: Bright-Line Rule on Pre-Effective Date Cases
This decision reinforces the Business Court's consistent interpretation that the September 1, 2024 effective date creates a bright-line jurisdictional rule based on original filing date, not subsequent amendments. The court cited its own precedents—Seter v. Westdale Asset Mgmt., Ltd., 2024 Tex. Bus. 7 (Dec. 16, 2024), Cypress Towne Ctr., Ltd. v. Kimco Realty Servs., Inc., 2025 Tex. Bus. 8 (Feb. 25, 2025), and Yadav v. Agrawal, 2025 Tex. Bus. 7 (Feb. 11, 2025)—establishing that adding publicly traded companies, filing interventions, or asserting third-party claims post-effective date does not confer jurisdiction over pre-existing actions. For practitioners, the message is clear: strategic amendments adding Business Court-eligible claims or parties to cases filed before September 1, 2024 will not create a removal pathway. The opinion also declined to address BMC's severance request, leaving open whether severance of post-effective-date claims might present a different jurisdictional question—though the court's reasoning suggests skepticism. Litigants considering removal must focus on the original petition's filing date as the dispositive jurisdictional fact.