Background

ETC Field Services, LLC (formerly Regency Field Services) appealed from an order by Business Court Division 8A remanding its seven-year-old dispute with Tema Oil and Gas Company back to the Tarrant County trial court where it was originally filed. The case had been removed to the Business Court only 56 days earlier. The remand order determined that the case was not within the Business Court's jurisdiction under Government Code Chapter 25A, which provides that if a case is improperly removed, "the business court shall remand the action to the court in which the action was originally filed." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 25A.006(d).

The Jurisdictional Question

The Fifteenth Court of Appeals confronted a threshold issue of first impression: whether it had jurisdiction over a direct appeal from a Business Court remand order. Chapter 25A grants the Fifteenth Court "exclusive jurisdiction over appeals and original proceedings arising from a judgment, order, or action of the business court," using procedures "the same as the procedure for an appeal or original proceeding from a district court." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 25A.007(a), (c). But as the court observed, "[u]nless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments."

No Statutory Authorization for Interlocutory Appeal

The court found no statute authorizing an interlocutory appeal from a remand order. Significantly, the court noted that "a business court bill filed but never enacted in 2021 did authorize an interlocutory appeal from such orders," citing House Bill 1875 from the 87th Legislature. But Chapter 25A as enacted in 2023 "did not follow suit." Applying the principle from PPG Industries, the court emphasized:

This omission does not imply a prohibition, but we must at least begin by noting that the Legislature clearly knew how to draft such a provision but chose not to do so here.

Not a Final Judgment

The court also rejected the argument that the remand order was a final judgment. An order is final and appealable only if it "(1) disposes of all remaining parties and claims, or (2) contains unequivocal finality language that expressly disposes of all claims and parties." The remand order satisfied neither requirement. It "does not dispose of any parties, or any issues other than the business court's jurisdiction," and "simply remands the same seven-year-old case to the trial court from which it had been removed 56 days earlier for further proceedings." The order contains no unequivocal finality language—indeed, it could not, since a business court lacking jurisdiction can only "remand the action to the court in which the action was originally filed" under Section 25A.006(d).

ETC alternatively argued the remand was appealable as in the nature of a plea to the jurisdiction—"a final resolution" that the Business Court lacked jurisdiction. The opinion does not complete its analysis of this argument in the portion provided.