Removal Deadline Under Section 25A.006(f)(2) Is Not a Prohibition on Early Removal During Pending TI Application
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Judge Brian Stagner
In Aspire Commercial v. Stephenson, the Business Court of Texas denied a motion to remand filed by defendant Christopher Stephenson, who argued that removal was premature while a temporary injunction application remained pending in district court. The court's ruling addresses the timing of removal when TI applications are under advisement and the standards for establishing the $5 million jurisdictional threshold.
Court Staff Summary
Denying a motion to remand. Section 25A.006(f)(2) establishes a deadline for removal to Business Court, not a prohibition on removal until thirty days after the TI application is granted, denied, or denied by operation of law. Mere attorney argument cannot establish that the amount in controversy is less than $5 million. Motive for removal is not relevant to the remand analysis.
Background: Trade Secrets Dispute and Removal During Pending TI Application
Aspire Commercial, LLC filed suit against Christopher Stephenson in the 334th Judicial District Court of Harris County on February 20, 2026, asserting claims under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and seeking injunctive relief. The district court entered a temporary restraining order against Stephenson the same day. On April 7, the district court heard Aspire's application for temporary injunction. Following the hearing, the district court requested supplemental briefing, and the application remained under advisement.
On April 22, Aspire filed its Second Amended Petition, adding BES.AI, LLC as a defendant. The district court entered a second TRO against Stephenson and BES.AI on April 23, and a TI hearing on the Second Amended Application was scheduled for May 5. On April 28—before the district court ruled on the first TI application and before the second TI hearing—Aspire removed the case to the Business Court, alleging damages exceeding $5 million and invoking jurisdiction under Texas Government Code § 25A.004(d)(4)(B), (d)(5), and (f).
Aspire alleged that after the April 7 TI hearing, it discovered additional misconduct by Stephenson and BES.AI that increased the amount in controversy to more than $5 million and, for the first time, revealed facts establishing the Business Court's jurisdiction. On May 5, 2026, Aspire filed a supplement to its Second Amended Application with additional factual allegations supporting the jurisdictional amount. Among other things, Aspire alleged that Stephenson's conduct threatens Aspire's broker license and ability to operate as a real estate brokerage business, placing at risk an asserted revenue stream of approximately $300,000 per month. Aspire also alleged that as of April 2026, BES.AI had at least 300 paying subscribers, some of which are Aspire's competitors, with access to Aspire's confidential information.
Motion to Remand Filed
On May 4, 2026, Stephenson filed a Motion to Remand. After reviewing the Motion, the response, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, the Business Court denied the Motion. The court's written Memorandum Opinion and Order was filed and entered on May 8, 2026.