Rule 202 Pre-Suit Discovery Petitions Are Removable 'Actions' Under Section 25A.006(d)
Judge Bill Whitehill
Decided August 05, 2026
Mem. Op.
Jurisdiction & Remand
In In re Radical Hoops, the Business Court denied a motion to remand a Rule 202 pre-suit deposition petition removed from district court, rejecting petitioners' argument that such petitions are not removable "actions" under Government Code § 25A.006(d). The court held that the Texas Supreme Court defines "action" broadly to include any proceeding where a party seeks to enforce a claimed right, encompassing Rule 202 petitions.
Court Staff Summary
Read the full opinion The defendant removed a Rule 202 proceeding from district court to the Business Court. The Court denied a motion to remand because a Rule 202 proceeding in district court is an "action" and the action anticipated after the Rule 202 deposition would be in the Business Court's statutory subject matter jurisdiction.
Background: Arena Development and Pre-Suit Discovery
The dispute arose from petitioners Radical Hoops, Ltd. and Radical Mavericks II, LLC's claims that respondent Arena Development Intermediate, LLC (ADI) is or may be tortiously interfering with petitioners' asserted right to participate in a future arena development for the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team. According to the petition, Mark Cuban (petitioner's principal) sold his majority interest in the Mavericks to respondent's principals, members of the Adelson family, with an agreement allowing Cuban to participate in "certain business opportunities" including an anticipated destination casino. In 2024, the Adelson family began actively pursuing a new arena to replace the American Airlines Center, with Valley View Mall—a defunct shopping center in North Dallas—becoming a leading candidate. Petitioners filed a Rule 202 petition in district court seeking pre-suit discovery. ADI removed the proceeding to the Business Court, and petitioners moved to remand.
The Jurisdictional Question
Petitioners argued that a Rule 202 proceeding is not an "action" under Government Code § 25A.006(d)'s removal provision because "action" means a lawsuit, and a Rule 202 petition is not a lawsuit. In their motion, petitioners stated: "This Court should remand Petitioner's Rule 202 Petition to the 134th District Court because the Texas Business Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Rule 202 petitions. Under Texas Government Code § 25A.004(b) this Court's jurisdiction is limited to 'civil actions.' A Rule 202 petition is not an 'action.'" Petitioners cited Tema Oil & Gas Co. v. ETC Filed Servs. for the proposition that "[a] civil action is a lawsuit."
The Court's Reasoning: Texas Supreme Court Precedent Controls
The court denied the remand motion, holding that "the Texas Supreme Court holds that an 'action' includes a proceeding where a party seeks to enforce a claimed right (such as a Rule 202 petition)." The court explained that this definition encompasses Rule 202 petitions, which are proceedings in which parties assert claims for relief. The opinion emphasized that the supreme court's holding on the meaning of "action" was controlling and dispositive of petitioners' argument that Rule 202 petitions fall outside the Business Court's removal jurisdiction.