Texas Business Court Decision – May 8, 2026

Aspire Commercial, LLC v. Christopher Stephenson and BES.AI, LLC (Eleventh Division, Judge Stagner)  26-bc11b-0040-aspire-commercial-v-stephenson-2026-tex-bus-23.pdf

Remand Motions

Background:

This trade secrets suit was filed in Harris County against defendant Stephenson, and stated claims for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of fiduciary duty, equitable relief, and injunctive relief; the district court entered a temporary restraining order against defendant Stephenson; the court requested supplemental briefing, and the application for a temporary injunction remains pending. Two weeks after the hearing on plaintiff’s request for a temporary injunction, plaintiff filed a Verified Second Amended Petition and Application for injunctive relief, adding BES.AI as a defendant; the Ancillary Court entered a second TRO against both defendants and set a hearing date on the Second Amended Application. Six days later, before a ruling on the first temporary injunction and before the Second Amended Application could be heard, plaintiff removed the case to the Business  Court, alleging damages exceeding $5 million and invoking jurisdiction under Texas Government Code Sec. 25A.004(d)(4)(B), (D)(5), and (f).  Plaintiff alleged that after the first temporary injunction hearing it discovered additional misconduct by defendants that increased the amount in controversy to more than $5 million and for the first time, revealed facts establishing Business Court jurisdiction.  Defendants move to remand the case to Harris County. The motion is denied.

Held:

(1) Plaintiff’s removal to Business Court was not premature. Tex. Gov’t Code Sec. 25.006(f)(2) – which sets a removal deadline of  thirty days after a pending temporary injunction application is resolved – establishes a ceiling on removal, not a floor. The statute does not prohibit removal while a temporary injunction application is pending; it merely extends the deadline in that circumstance.

(2) Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts supporting an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million, including allegations concerning the threatened loss of substantial business revenue and potential royalty damage associated with third-party access to its confidential trade secrets; plaintiff has met its initial pleading burden to establish the Business Court’s jurisdiction.

(3) The burden then shifted to defendants to present evidence showing either that plaintiff’s jurisdictional allegations were a sham or that the amount in controversy could readily be established as below the jurisdictional threshold; however, defendants’ motion was unsupported by affidavits, testimony, documents, or other competent jurisdictional evidence; defendants’ attorney’s arguments about the plausibility of plaintiff’s allegations are not evidence and do not meet defendants’ burden of proof.

(4) Defendants’ argument that plaintiff is forum-shopping is immaterial as neither the statute nor Rule 355 makes a party’s removal motive relevant to the remand analysis.

The motion to remand is denied.