Division 3's opinion in The Bakery LLC v. Naterra International, Inc. resolves an important timing question for removal practice: when does the 30-day removal clock begin to run in cases where counterclaims first bring an action within the Texas Business Court's amount-in-controversy jurisdiction? The Court held that the clock starts when the counterclaims are actually filed, not when they are merely threatened in pre-suit correspondence.

Procedural Background

Plaintiffs The Bakery LLC and Ken Media LLC filed suit on May 19, 2026, asserting a sworn account claim for $1,350,507 in unpaid services. On July 1, defendant Naterra International filed counterclaims alleging more than $60 million in damages. Plaintiffs removed to the Business Court on July 29—within 30 days of the counterclaims being filed. The wrinkle: before suit was filed, Naterra had responded to a demand letter by threatening to assert counterclaims valued at over $60 million. Naterra moved to remand, arguing that plaintiffs knew or should have known before filing suit that the amount in controversy would exceed $5 million, making the July 29 removal untimely under Section 25A.006(f)(1)(B).

The Court's Holding

The Court denied the motion to remand, holding that removal was timely because the 30-day clock did not begin to run until defendant filed the counterclaims that first placed the action within the Court's amount-in-controversy jurisdiction. As the syllabus explains:

Pre-suit threats to assert counterclaims valued above the jurisdictional threshold do not, alone, establish the business court's jurisdiction over an action in which those counterclaims have not yet been (and might never have been) pleaded.

The Court emphasized that jurisdiction depends on claims actually pleaded in the action. The opinion notes that defendant did not dispute that plaintiffs removed within 30 days of the date defendant filed its counterclaims or that the case is within the Court's amount-in-controversy jurisdiction. Instead, defendant contended that removal was untimely because of the pre-suit threats to file counterclaims valued at over $60 million.

Practical Implications

The decision provides clarity for removal practice in the Texas Business Court. Under the Court's holding, parties seeking to remove based on counterclaims that bring an action within the jurisdictional minimum have 30 days from when those counterclaims are actually filed, regardless of any pre-suit communications about potential counterclaims. The Court's reasoning is grounded in the statutory language of Section 25A.006(f)(1)(A)-(B) and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 355(c)(2)(A), which tie the removal deadline to when a party discovers or reasonably should have discovered facts establishing the business court's jurisdiction over the action.

The opinion makes clear that threatened but unpled counterclaims—even when their value is asserted to exceed the jurisdictional threshold—do not establish jurisdiction over an action until they are actually joined through pleading. This approach ensures that the removal clock is tied to concrete jurisdictional facts rather than speculative future claims.