Texas Judicial

Branch

Business Court

Opinions 

Disclaimer: The descriptions of opinions on this page were created by court staff and are provided for the convenience of the public. They are not part of the Court's opinion, do not constitute the Court's official description or statement, and should not be relied upon as legal authority.

Martens v. Lamkin Land and Cattle Company, 2025 Tex. Bus. 32

  • This case presents two issues: (i) whether the Business Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s application for an involuntary winding-up of a limited liability company, and, if so, (ii) whether an earlier-filed lawsuit in district court between the same parties requires dismissal or abatement of this action under the doctrine of dominant jurisdiction. The Court concludes it has subject-matter jurisdiction and that the district court case and this case are not sufficiently interrelated to invoke dominant jurisdiction. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to dismiss, plea to the jurisdiction, and plea in abatement are denied.

Chaudhry v. Stillwater Oz Development Fund, 2025 Tex. Bus. 31

  • This case concerns whether (i) a party must file a separate removal notice, consent to removal, or join in another party’s notice to argue that the case is removed as to it; (ii) claims alleging common law and statutory fraud inducing a member to enter an LLC company agreement are actions “regarding” the company’s “internal affairs” or “governing documents”; (iii) the case-wide amount in controversy requirement encompasses counterclaims; and (iv) this court recognizes non-statutory grounds for declining to exercise original subject matter jurisdiction.

OWL AssetCo1 v. EOG Resources, 2025 Tex. Bus. 30

  • Granting a motion to remand arguing that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the $10 million minimum amount in controversy and that HB 40, lowering the requirement to $5 million, but effective after the date of the ruling, does not affect the ruling.

M&M Livestock v. Robinson, 2025 Tex. Bus. 29

  • Denying a plea to the jurisdiction arguing that Plaintiffs did not plead facts sufficient to satisfy the $5 million minimum amount in controversy.

SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable, 2025 Tex. Bus. 28

  • Denying a motion for reconsideration of a discovery order arguing that the material sought was a trade secret.

BP Energy v. Cox, 2025 Tex. Bus. 27

  • Granting an unopposed motion to transfer to district court arguing that the claims at issue did not arise from a qualified transaction.

Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation, 2025 Tex. Bus. 26

  • Granting a special appearance arguing no purposeful contacts in Texas.

Kassam v. Dosani, 2025 Tex. Bus. 25

  • Denying a motion to sever claims allegedly improperly joined.
  • Denying a plea to the jurisdiction because movants did not meet their burden to establish that the amount in controversy does not exceed $5 million.

Black Mountain SWD v. NGL Water Solutions Permian, 2025 Tex. Bus. 24

  • The Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(d)(1) because the amount in controversy does not exceed $10 million. The amount in controversy is the actual damages sought by Plaintiff for unpaid royalties on saltwater transported in pipelines subject to the royalty agreement from the date the agreement was signed to the date the action was filed. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that unpaid royalties on the total volume of saltwater transported in these pipelines during this period would not exceed $4.5 million. The amount in controversy does not include the value of the purported right at stake to receive disputed royalties on discarded saltwater for the life of the agreement, as urged by Defendant.

Reed v. Rook TX, 2025 Tex. Bus. 23

  • On a motion to remand, the Court holds that this action concerns a limited partnership’s “governance, governing documents, or internal affairs,” and thus falls within the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(b)(2) of the Government Code, because it concerns when the partnership was formed, whether it was formed for improper purposes, and whether the plaintiff can recover partnership proceeds from its partners and others. In doing so, the Court rejects the movant’s argument that Section 25A.004(b)(2) applies only if an organization’s governance, governing documents, or internal affairs are the predominant focus of the case.

Slant Operating v. Octane Energy Operating, 2025 Tex. Bus. 22

  • This opinion addresses whether the Plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction under Texas Government Code § 25A.004(d)(1) and whether the Defendant successfully challenged jurisdiction on the grounds of pleading insufficiency and existence of jurisdictional facts. The Court concludes that because the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient jurisdictional allegations and the Defendant failed to successfully refute these allegations, the Court must deny Defendant’s Plea to the Jurisdiction.

Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation, 2025 Tex. Bus. 21

  • Ruling that a partnership agreement exempts certain defendants from liability.

NGL Water Solutions Permian v Lime Rock Resources, 2025 Tex. Bus. 20

  • Granting a motion to transfer venue arguing mandatory venue because the suit arises out of damages to real property and considering the applicability of a venue-selection agreement.
  • Dismissing the case because the court granted a motion to transfer venue to a county outside the Business Court divisions and the non-movant fails to make an election under section 25A.006(b) or (c).

Westlake Longview Solutions Permian v, Eastman Chemical, 2025 Tex. Bus. 19

  • This opinion addresses the applicable legal tests and evidentiary burdens for deciding whether discovery material may be designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under a protective order and whether in-house counsel should be granted access to AEO-designated material. Both inquiries require a balancing of the parties’ competing interests based on specific, non-conclusory evidence that has not yet been presented in this case.

G-Force & Associates v. Bloecher, 2025 Tex. Bus. 18

  • The Court holds that it lacks jurisdiction over the removed action. In so holding, the Court reaches two conclusions. The first conclusion is that jurisdiction does not exist under Section 25A.001(d)(1) of the Texas Government Code because there is no “qualified transaction.” None of the transactions identified by Defendants, especially the construction-project bids, involves a consummated agreement or contract that would obligate or entitle a party to pay or receive consideration of at least $10 million. The second conclusion is that jurisdiction does not exist under Section 25A.004(e) of the Texas Government Code because, for jurisdiction to exist under subsection (e), jurisdiction must exist under subsection (d)(1).

CreateAI Holdings f/n/a TuSimple Holding v. Bot Auto TX, 2025 Tex. Bus. 17

  • Granting a motion to dismiss certain counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment under the "mirror image" rule.

Atlas IDF v. NexPoint Real Estate Partners, 2025 Tex. Bus. 16

  • This opinion addresses Texas Government Code Chapter 25A’s use of “qualified transaction,” including (i) when an action “aris[es] out of” a qualified transaction; (ii) the relevant period for determining the aggregate value of a qualified transaction; and (iii) the burden for establishing the same. The opinion also addresses what forms of “interest” are excluded in determining the amount in controversy under this chapter.  Considering whether this action arises out of a qualified transaction.

Tall v. Vanderhoef, 2025 Tex. Bus. 15

  • Granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss various claims under Rule 91a.
  • Granting a motion to stay pending arbitration.

In Re J.W.B., 2025 Tex. Bus. 14

  • This opinion addresses whether a party may remove a case that was filed in statutory probate court before September 1, 2024, but added a new defendant and corporate claims after September 1, 2024. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the entire action commenced prior to September 1, 2024; it therefore remanded the case to the probate court.

Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation, 2025 Tex. Bus. 13

  • Denying a motion to reconsider the granting of a motion for summary judgment in 2025 Tex. Bus. 9.

Targa Northern Delaware v. Franklin Mountain Energy 2 (n/k/a Conterra Energy Operating M), 2025 Tex. Bus. 12

  • Denying a plea to the jurisdiction in a case about an alleged breach of contract concerning natural gas deliveries from New Mexico to Texas, where the movant argues that the case is about real property interests in New Mexico (natural gas still in the ground in New Mexico), but the non-movant argues that it is about severed personal property (natural gas produced in New Mexico) delivered to Texas with only incidental implications for the real property in New Mexico.

ET Gathering & Processing v. Tellurian Production, 2025 Tex. Bus. 11

  • In a plea to the jurisdiction, Defendant challenged the Court’s authority to hear this case by arguing the amount in controversy pleaded by Plaintiff was merely a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining this court’s jurisdiction. Applying Texas’s well-established plea to the jurisdiction standard, the Court concluded Defendant did not produce evidence that Plaintiff’s actions amounted to a sham and denied Defendant’s plea.

Safelease Insurance Services v. Storable, 2025 Tex. Bus. 10

  • Denying a post-temporary-injunction hearing motion to exclude expert testimony given at the hearing.
  • Denying an objection to a temporary-injunction order arguing that the order decides the ultimate merits of the case rather than a probable right to recover.

Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation, 2025 Tex. Bus. 9

  • This opinion addresses the nature, scope, adaptability, and enforcement of a partner’s statutory duties of loyalty and care and obligation to perform them in (i) good faith and (ii) a manner it reasonably believes to be in the partnership’s best interest when that partner exercised its drag-along rights and sold the partnership’s business.
  • Texas’s freedom of contract principles give partners wide latitude to expand or limit their conduct standards. But the loyalty and care duties and related performance obligations cannot be eliminated.  This partnership agreement expressly limits those duties and obligations to the greatest extent permitted by law.  This case centers on the enforceability of those limits.

Cypress Town Center v. Kimco Realty Services, 2025 Tex. Bus. 8

  • This opinion addresses the removability of actions to the Texas Business Court that were filed in the district court before September 1, 2024, where a publicly traded company was joined as a defendant in the underlying case after September 1, 2024, and Defendants filed an opposed notice of removal within thirty days of the publicly traded defendant’s joinder. The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits the applicability of Texas Government Code Chapter 25A to “civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”

Yadav v. Agrawal, 2025 Tex. Bus. 7

  • In this case, Defendants attempted to remove an action filed on May 1, 2024, to the Texas Business Court. They also sought to remove claims filed on October 4, 2024, in the same lawsuit, to the Business Court. This opinion addresses whether the Business Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the initial lawsuit and whether it has jurisdiction over later-filed claims. The Court concluded that Section 8 of H.B. 19 prohibits the removal of cases filed prior to September 1, 2024. Further, the Court concluded that the claims filed in the lawsuit after September 1, 2024 are part of the same action and the Business Court lacked jurisdiction over those later-filed claims. The Court remanded the case in its entirety to the district court.

SafeLease Insurance Services v. Storable, 2025 Tex. Bus. 6

  • On a motion to remand, the Court holds that the 30-day period for removing an action to the Business Court does not begin before the action is filed. Because Plaintiff filed its notice of removal within 30 days after this suit was filed, the notice was timely. The Court also adheres to its previous holding that an action may satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional amount-in-controversy minimums even when no party seeks damages.

Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund v. Primexx Energy Corporation, 2025 Tex. Bus. 5

  • Denying a special appearance by ruling that a party that filed an answer in an earlier iteration of the dispute in one Texas court consented to personal jurisdiction to litigate the same dispute in a later-filed suit in a different court in Texas.

Sebastian v. Durant, 2025 Tex. Bus. 4

  • This opinion concludes that, under Section 8 of House Bill 19—the court’s enabling legislation—the entirety of a civil action commences with the filing of the original petition, regardless of when additional parties and claims are joined. Additionally, Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code permits only the removal of an “action,” and not the partial removal of individual claims within an action. The court orders remand based on its lack of jurisdiction.

Osmose Utilities Services v. Navarro County Electric Cooperative, 2025 Tex. Bus. 3

  • Granting a motion for remand, the Court holds: (1) removal of an action to the Business Court means removal of the entire suit, and (2) regardless of whether an attempted partial removal presents a jurisdictional defect, the 2022 commencement date of the underlying lawsuit forecloses jurisdiction over the action by the Business Court.

Bestway Oilfield v. Cox, 2025 Tex. Bus. 2

  • Ruling sua sponte to remand the case back to district court because the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court, although neither party sought remand back to state court, but staying the order pending the resolution of the appeal and mandamus arising out of 2024 Tex. Bus. 2.

C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox, 2025 Tex. Bus. 1

  • On a motion to remand, the Court decides issues of statutory construction and procedure relating to the scope of the Business Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(e) of the Government Code and the burden-shifting framework for challenges to amount-in-controversy pleadings in the removal context.
  • First, the Court holds that Section 25A.004(e), which grants the Court jurisdiction over actions that seek “injunctive relief or a declaratory judgment” and involve “a dispute based on a claim within the court’s jurisdiction under Subsection (b), (c), or (d),” incorporates the amount-in-controversy limit (or exception) of the underlying Subsections—i.e., Subsection (b)’s $5 million limit, Subsection (d)’s $10 million limit, or Subsection (c)’s exemption from any amount-in-controversy limit. Here, the removing party invokes Subsection (b) as underlying the Court’s 1 jurisdiction over this action for injunctive and declaratory relief. As a result, the Court has jurisdiction only if the value of the rights at issue exceeds $5 million.
  • Second, the Court holds that when, as here, the notice of removal pleads that the value of the rights at stake are within the Court’s jurisdiction and the petition does not plead otherwise, the party moving for remand bears the initial burden of showing that the amount pleaded is fraudulent or that a different amount is readily established, such as by statute. The Court adopts the same burden-shifting framework applied to jurisdictional challenges raised through pleas to the jurisdiction and motions for traditional summary judgment, such that the movant bears the initial burden on the pretrial motion but the party asserting jurisdiction bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial.
  • The Court also denies a request for attorney’s fees and holds that the movant has not met its burden of proving that a venue clause in the Company Agreement applies to this action or that it binds Defendants, who are not signatories.

Lone Star NGL Product Services v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures, 2024 Tex. Bus. 8

  • This opinion addresses the removability of actions to the Texas Business Court that were filed before September 1, 2024, where the Parties have entered into a post-September 1, 2024 written agreement that the Court has jurisdiction of the case, and the Parties have pleaded jurisdiction under Texas Government Code Section 25A.004(d). The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits the applicability of Texas Government Code Chapter 25A to “civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.”  Per the request of the Parties, the Court further certifies the controlling question of law discussed herein for a permissive interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(d).  To the extent that the Court has the authority to do so, the Court’s remand order is stayed pending the resolution of the Parties’ permissive interlocutory appeal.

Seter v. Westdale Asset Management, 2024 Tex. Bus. 7

  • Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court.

XTO Energy Inc. v. Houston Pipe Line Company, 2024 Tex. Bus. 6

  • This opinion addresses the removability to the Business Court of cases filed before September 1, 2024, when removal has been contested. The Court concludes that., in such circumstances, Section 8 of House Bill 19 limits Business Court authority to act to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024.

Winans v. Berry, 2024 Tex. Bus. 5

  • In this case, Plaintiff attempted to remove a 2022 suit to the Texas Business Court, and Defendant challenged the court’s authority to hear this case. Construing the plain language of H.B. 19, the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the case because Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code and its removal procedure applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024

Jorrie v. AL Global Services, 2024 Tex. Bus. 4

  • This opinion concludes the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a case commenced before September 1, 2024. This 2018 suit was removed to the Business Court from district court under Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code. Though all parties consented to the removal, the court examined its jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded the legislation creating the Business Court of Texas does not grant the court jurisdiction, requiring remand.

TEMA Oil and Gas Company v. ETC Field Services, 2024 Tex. Bus. 3

  • After construing H.B. 19—the legislation implementing Chapter 25A— the Court concludes that removal is not permitted for cases filed before September 1, 2024. The Court also concludes that sanctions are not warranted.

Synergy Global Outsourcing v. Hinduja Global Solutions, 2024 Tex. Bus. 2

  • Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court

Energy Transfer v. Culberson Midstream, 2024 Tex. Bus. 1

  • Granting a motion to remand the case back to district court, when the case was originally filed in district court before September 1, 2024, and then removed to Business Court.