Texas Business Court Opinion – December 18, 2025

No. 25-BC04B-0001   Delfino Ornelas, III, etc., et al v. Erasmo Herrera (Fourth Division, Judge Sharp).  25-bc04b-0001-ornelas-v-herrera-2025-tex-bus-51.pdf

Jurisdiction.  Before the court was the parties’ Joint Advisory on Early Legal Issues, which proposed two issues for early resolution, including whether settlements of the claims against the other defendants affected the court’s jurisdiction over defendant Herrera (i.e., whether those dispositions reduced the amount in controversy below the $5 million threshold and thus deprived the court of jurisdiction).

Held: (1) In the live pleading before the court, plaintiffs’ Second Amended Petition, plaintiffs alleged an amount in controversy of more than $5 million, and no party contends the pleading is a sham or claims to have readily established a lower amount in controversy; plaintiffs’ amended pleading did not destroy the court’s jurisdiction;

(2) In any event, partial disposition of the suit could not divest the court of jurisdiction over the remaining claims as the original claims collectively satisfied the requisite amount in controversy, “and, in the amount-in-controversy context, ‘where jurisdiction is once lawfully and properly acquired, no later fact or event can defeat the court’s jurisdiction.'” See Cont’l Coffee Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W. 2d 444 (Tex. 1996) and Atlas IDF, LP v. NextPoint Real Est. Partners, LLC,  2025 Tex. Bus. 16,  715 S.W. 3d 390 (1st Div. 2025). The original and amended complaints properly invoked the court’s jurisdiction under sec. 25A.004 based on an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, and the court retains jurisdiction following the partial settlements.

(The court declines to rule on a question concerning whether defendant Herrera owed plaintiffs a fiduciary duty as the parties had not yet presented the evidence needed to decide the issue.)