Removal Statute Does Not Apply to Pre-Effective Date Cases: Business Court Lacked Authority to Accept 2017-Filed Action
Read the Court's Opinion (PDF)
Chief Justice Scott Brister
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief in In re ETC Field Services, holding that the Business Court properly remanded a 2017-filed breach of contract action because HB 19's removal provisions apply only to "civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024"—and removal transfers rather than commences an action. The court rejected ETC's attempt to remove a seven-year-old case just months before trial, establishing that the Legislature's choice of "commenced" forecloses removal of cases filed in district court before the Business Court's creation.
Background: Seven-Year-Old Contract Dispute and Unilateral Removal
On March 17, 2017, Tema Oil and Gas Co. sued ETC Field Services, LLC, in Tarrant County district court for breach of a gas-purchase contract. After seven years of litigation, the parties jointly requested a preferential trial setting for spring 2025 in June 2024. Less than three months later—and after the Texas Business Court became operational on September 1, 2024—ETC unilaterally removed the case to Business Court Division 8A. Tema moved to remand, and the Business Court granted the motion by written opinion on November 6, 2024.
ETC appealed and alternatively sought mandamus relief. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the interlocutory appeal in a companion opinion (ETC Field Servs., LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Co., No. 15-24-00124-CV), holding that no interlocutory appeal was available. The court then addressed the mandamus petition in this original proceeding.
The Statutory Construction Issue: What Does "Commenced" Mean?
The dispositive question was whether HB 19's removal provisions apply to cases filed before September 1, 2024. The Act's effective date clause provides that "changes in law made by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024." The court held that removal does not "commence" a new civil action but "simply transfers an existing one."
The court emphasized that the bill creating the business court uses the specific term "commenced" in its effective date provision, stating: "Because removal to the business court does not 'commence' a new civil action but simply transfers an existing one, we hold the new removal statute does not apply, and the business court did not err by remanding it."
No Abuse of Discretion in Remanding Pre-Effective Date Case
The court applied the two-part mandamus test, requiring the relator to establish both a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy. On the abuse of discretion prong, the court found that the Business Court properly applied the effective date provision. House Bill 19 created the statewide business court as of September 1, 2024, and provided for removal of actions pending in local trial courts within 30 days after discovery of facts establishing the business court's jurisdiction. However, the Act's effective date clause limited these "changes in law" to civil actions "commenced on or after September 1, 2024."
Because Tema's breach of contract action was commenced in Tarrant County district court on March 17, 2017—more than seven years before the Business Court's creation—the removal provisions did not apply. The Business Court therefore did not abuse its discretion in remanding the case back to the district court where it was originally filed.