Eight Months In – What’s Happening in the New Texas Business Court
May 9, 2025
On September 1, 2024, the Texas Business Court was officially created by the Texas Legislature to resolve certain complex business disputes.1 Tasked with building a new body of caselaw, on October 30, 2024, the First Division of the Texas Business Court issued its first opinion, remanding the case back to the district court.2 Since then, over a hundred cases have been filed in the Texas Business Court,3 resulting in twenty-three (23) opinions from various divisions,4 defining the scope and boundaries of its jurisdiction. As of May 1, 2025, fifteen (15) cases have been appealed to the newly-created Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which has issued six (6) opinions and one (1) order for cases originating from the Texas Business Court.5
Key Takeaways from Early Opinions of the Texas Business Court
- Removal and Remand. The majority of the early opinions from the Texas Business Court concern removal, i.e., whether a party properly removed a case to the business court. In most of these cases, the court remanded the case back to the original district court for lack of jurisdiction.6 Specifically, the Texas Business Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear cases commenced prior to September 1, 2024, based on its interpretation of House Bill 19 (“H.B.19”).7 The Fifteenth Court of Appeals approved of this interpretation of H.B.19.8
- Later Filed Actions. The Third Division of the Texas Business Court held that it lacked jurisdiction over claims filed after September 1, 2024, when they were part of an action brought before September 1, 2024.9
- Consent to Removal Not Enough. In several opinions, the Texas Business Court remanded, even though the parties consented to removal.10
- No Partial Removal. Two opinions from the First and Fourth Divisions of the Texas Business Court concluded that it is not permissible to partially remove discrete claims in a lawsuit to the Texas Business Court—an entire “action” must be removed.11
- 30-Day Deadline. The Third Division of the Texas Business Court held the 30-day removal deadline does not begin to run before the lawsuit is filed, rejecting the argument the deadline begins to run “when the parties have knowledge of the underlying facts that give rise to claims that fall within this Court's jurisdiction.”12
- Non-Removal Pleas to Jurisdiction. The Texas Business Court has denied pleas challenging jurisdiction in cases originally filed in the Business Court after September 1, 2024 (albeit, on different grounds).13 For instance, the First Division rejected a challenge to its jurisdiction based on the determination that the contract dispute at issue concerned “personal property,” which “only collaterally and incidentally implicate[d]” realty in another state.14 Likewise, the Fourth Division rejected a challenge to its jurisdiction based on the determination that the first amended petition was not a sham pleading, even though plaintiff originally filed in district court, non-suited, then refiled in the Texas Business Court.15
- Amount in Controversy. The Third Division of the Texas Business Court has addressed numerous aspects of the amount in controversy requirement.16
- Non-Damages. The Third Division held that actions in which damages are not sought could satisfy the jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement, apparently considering “value” in assessing the “amount in controversy.”17
- Amount in Controversy Evidence Not Required for Removal. The Third Division held “that there is no duty to file jurisdictional evidence with a notice of removal to this Court.”18
- Texas Approach to Amount in Controversy. The Third Division adopted the “Texas approach” (rather than the federal approach) with respect to pleadings in deciding amount in controversy disputes. The Texas approach (i) treats all amount in controversy pleadings in the same manner, regardless of whether the pleadings were filed by a plaintiff or defendant; and (ii) provides the same burden for parties challenging the pleadings, regardless of whether the challenge is brought in a plea to the jurisdiction, motion for traditional summary judgment, or motion to remand.19 In each case, (iii) “the movant bears the burden on a motion filed before trial, while the burden of proof at trial . . . remains on the party asserting jurisdiction”; and (iv) the “amount-in-controversy pleadings control absent specific circumstances.”20
- Action Level. The Third Division held “the amount in controversy applies at the ‘action’ level, considering all claims properly joined before the Court, rather than as a per-claim minimum.”21
- Mandamus Review. The Fifteenth Court of Appeals has indicated that mandamus review of early Texas Business Court decisions may be appropriate to provide “needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive.”22
Looking to the Future
Although the early opinions from the Texas Business Court largely concern jurisdictional issues, litigants can expect to see more substantive opinions as cases proceed past the initial gatekeeping stage.23 Due to the experience and expertise of the judges, the Texas Business Court will be an attractive option for litigants in complex, high stakes commercial disputes, as evidenced by the large number of cases where parties actively sought removal to the court.24
1See In re ETC Field Servs., LLC, No. 15-24-00131-CV, 2025 WL 582320, at *2 (Tex. App. (15 Dist.) Feb. 21, 2025) (“While the effective date of the Act was September 1, 2023, the business court itself was not actually created until September 1, 2024.” (footnote omitted)).
2See Energy Transfer LP v. Culberson Midstream LLC, 705 S.W.3d 217, 221 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Oct. 30, 2024)
3As of May 1, 2025, 117 cases have been filed in the Texas Business Court.
4As of May 1, 2025, 23 published opinions have been issued by the Texas Business Court.
5One case originating from the Texas Business Court has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas: In re Westdale Asset Management, LTD., Case No. 25-0159. .
6See id.; Synergy Glob. Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Glob. Sols., Inc., 705 S.W.3d 221, 226 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Oct. 31, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 15-24-00127-CV, 2025 WL 582314 (Tex. App. (15 Dist.) Feb. 21, 2025); Tema Oil & Gas Co. v. ETC Field Servs., LLC, 705 S.W.3d 226, 234–35 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Nov. 6, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 15-24-00124-CV, 2025 WL 582317 (Tex. App. (15 Dist.) Feb. 21, 2025); Jorrie v. Charles, 705 S.W.3d 787, 792 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Nov. 7, 2024); Winans v. Berry, 705 S.W.3d 236, 239 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Nov 7, 2024); XTO Energy, Inc. v. Hous. Pipe Line Co., LP, 705 S.W.3d 239, 243 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Nov. 26, 2024); Seter v. Westdale Asset Mgmt., Ltd., No. 24-BC01A-0006, 2024 WL 5337346, at *1 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Dec. 16, 2024); Lone Star NGL Prod. Servs. LLC v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures, LLC, 705 S.W.3d 243, 255 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Dec 20, 2024); Bestway Oilfield, Inc. v. Cox, No. 24-BC11A-0016, 2025 WL 251338, at *5 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Jan. 17, 2025); Osmose Utils. Servs., Inc. v. Navarro Cnty. Elec. Coop., 707 S.W.3d 117, 123–24 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Jan. 31, 2025); Sebastian v. Durant, 707 S.W.3d 124, 129–30 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Feb. 4, 2025); Yadav v. Agrawal, No. 24-BC03B-0003, 2025 WL 467645, at *14 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Feb. 11, 2025); Cypress Towne Ctr., Ltd. v. Kimco Realty Servs., Inc., No. 24-BC11A-0013, 2025 WL 610519, at *10 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Feb. 25, 2025).
7See, e.g., Cypress Towne, No. 24-BC11A-0013, 2025 WL 610519, at *4 (“[I]t is now settled that the Texas Business Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over actions which were commenced prior to September 1, 2024.” (collecting cases)).
8See In re ETC, No. 15-24-00131-CV, 2025 WL 582320, at *3 (“Because removal to the business court does not apply to cases commenced elsewhere before September 1, 2024, we hold the business court did not abuse its discretion by remanding this civil action to the district court from which it came.”).
9See Yadav, No. 24-BC03B-0003, 2025 WL 467645, at *1 (“The Court must decide whether it has jurisdiction of the original lawsuit brought before September 1, 2024, and whether later filed claims are part of the same ‘action.’ Because the Court concludes that the original lawsuit was brought too early to fit within this Court’s jurisdiction and all of the claims are part of one ‘action,’ the Court grants the motion to remand the entire case to the district court.”).
10See Jorrie, 705 S.W.3d at 792 (“Though the parties jointly ask the Business Court to hear this case, their agreement cannot expand the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.”); Lone Star, 705 S.W.3d at 255 (“The Parties have failed to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. . . . As a result, the Court is required to remand this case to the district court.”); Bestway, No. 24-BC11A-0016, 2025 WL 251338, at *1 (remanding, but noting defendants “ultimately agreed to removal”).
11See Osmose, 707 S.W.3d at 121 (“[T]he motion is resolved by a determination that Chapter 25A permits only removal of a lawsuit, and not individual claims within a lawsuit, and secondarily that this lawsuit commenced before September 1, 2024, making removal improper.”); Sebastian v. Durant, 707 S.W.3d 124, 127 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Feb. 4, 2025) (“[T]he Act [establishing the Texas Business Court] permits a party to ‘remove the action’—not independent claims—to the Business Court.”).
12See SafeLease Ins. Servs. LLC v. Storable, Inc., 707 S.W.3d 130, 132–33 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Feb. 10, 2025) (“This Court had no jurisdiction or authority to decide this ‘action’ before it came into existence, which occurred when the petition was filed. Because SafeLease filed its notice of removal within 30 days of when it filed suit and within eight days of the district court’s TI ruling, the notice was timely.” (quote on page 133)).
13See ET Gathering & Processing LLC v. Tellurian Prod. LLC, No. 24-BC11A-0028, 2025 WL 786619, at *3 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Mar. 11, 2025) (denying defendant’s plea to jurisdiction); Targa N. Del., LLC v. Franklin Mountain Energy 2, LLC, No. 24-BC01B-0001, 2025 WL 952987, at *8 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Mar. 28, 2025) (same, as to defendant’s Second Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction).
14See Targa, No. 24-BC01B-0001, 2025 WL 952987, at *8. Under Texas law, “it is well-settled that Texas courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate title to real property interests located outside of Texas.” Id. at *4.
15See ET Gathering, 2025 WL 786619, at *3 (“In this case, Plaintiff's decision to nonsuit its action in district court after engaging in some discovery and then refile its action in this court amounts to litigation strategy as opposed to fraudulent behavior or a sham pleading as Defendant argues.”).
16See SafeLease, 707 S.W.3d at 134–35; C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox, No. 24-BC03A-0004, 2025 WL 224542, at *14–15 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Jan. 3, 2025). The Fourth Division also addressed the amount in controversy requirement in ET Gathering. See 2025 WL 786619, at *3.
17See SafeLease, 707 S.W.3d at 134 (“Accordingly, both the Texas Supreme Court and this Court have held that actions in which damages were not sought nevertheless could satisfy jurisdictional amount-in-controversy minimums.”); see also C Ten, 2025 WL 224542, at *9 (“The amount in controversy in an action is the sum of money or the value of the thing originally sued for.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
18C Ten, 2025 WL 224542, at *11.
19Id. at *14.
20Id. The Fourth Division indicated these circumstances include “proof of fraud or a sham pleading.” See ET Gathering, 2025 WL 786619, at *3 (holding “in absence of proof of fraud or a sham pleading, the allegations in the pleadings control to determine whether this court has jurisdiction to hear this case”).
21C Ten, 2025 WL 224542, at *7.
22See In re ETC, No. 15-24-00131-CV, 2025 WL 582320, at *4 (“Mandamus review of significant rulings in exceptional cases [from the Texas Business Court] would allow this Court to give needed and helpful direction to the law that would otherwise prove elusive, without unduly interfering on issues that are unimportant both to the ultimate disposition of the case at hand and to the uniform development of the law.” (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted)).
23Indeed, the First Division recently issued an opinion addressing a summary judgment motion concerning a dispute about a partnership agreement. See Primexx Energy Opportunity Fund, LP v. Primexx Energy Corp., No. 24-BC01B-0010, 2025 WL 758641, at *1 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Mar. 10, 2025).
24The Texas Business Court recently updated its Local Rules, effective March 1, 2025. These rules will provide much needed guidance to litigants filing in the Court.
This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Timothy S. Durst, an O’Melveny Partner licensed to practice law in Texas; Whit Roberts, an O’Melveny Partner licensed to practice law in Texas; Kristin Alvarado, an O’Melveny Counsel licensed to practice law in Texas, and Molly B. Schuminer, an O’Melveny Associate licensed to practice law in Texas, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.
© 2025 O’Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved. Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York’s Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700, New York, NY, 10019, T: +1 212 326 2000.