Texas Business Court Decision – May 14, 2026
No. 26-BC08A-0007 DrinkPAK, LLC v. PRIII and Trammell Crow Company, LLC. (Eighth Division, Judge Bullard) 26-bc08a-0007-drinkpak-v-priii-crow-building-c-2026-tex-bus-27.pdf
Removal to Business Court/Jurisdiction.
Background.
DrinkPAK makes canned beverages, and it agreed to lease a 1.3 million square feet space from defendant PRIII for a bottling facility. DrinkPAK claimed the building’s foundation was defective and that defendant TCC, PRIII’s broker, never informed it of the defects. After an exchange of demand letters seeking millions in damages, DrinkPAK sued PRIII and TCC in Denton County in November 2025, alleging multiple fraud and negligence-based claims, as well as breach of implied warranty of suitability. Defendants removed the action to federal court, and in January 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation to remand the case to Denton County; the motion was granted. After the remand, defendants filed their answer and a notice of removal to the Business Court on March 10, 2026. DrinkPAK filed a motion to remand the case to Denton County, which the court granted on April 17, 2026. This opinion explains the Business Court’s remand order.
Held:
(1) Defendants’ removal motion to the Business Court was untimely. Because DrinkPAK objected to the removal, defendants needed to file their removal notice no later than 30 days after the later of (1) the date they were served with process or (2) the date they discovered facts establishing the Business Court’s jurisdiction – see TEX. GOV. CODE Sec.25A.006(f)(1)(A)-(B). But they did neither.
(2)They were served on December 12 and 15, 2025, and 30 days after the latest service date was January 14. The removal notice was filed March 10 and was untimely under the statute.
(3) Nor did they file the removal notice within 30 days of discovering the facts establishing Business Court jurisdiction; while DrinkPAK only claimed damages “over $1 million” in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, that is not the end of the story, as the relevant question is when defendants discovered or should have discovered the facts establishing the court’s jurisdiction; in deciding that, the court may consider the petition as a whole, the nature of the claims asserted, the underlying transaction, and other evidence bearing on the amount in controversy. Here, the petition, the parties’ lease agreement (which was worth more than $100 million), and their pre-suit correspondence (which demanded an amount in excess of $5 million) left no doubt that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million; therefore the defendants discovered or should have discovered, the jurisdictional facts when they were served.
(3) PRIII’s assertion of a counterclaim in its responsive pleading did not trigger a new 30-day removal period as the filing of a counterclaim does not create a new action; PRIII’s claim was simply added to DrinkPAK’s already pending action.
(4) Texas Rule of Evidence 408 does not preclude the court from considering pre-demand letters to determine when the defendants discovered the Business Court’s jurisdiction; the letters could not be admitted under the Rule to prove the amount in controversy, but they can be considered for “other purposes,” including establishing when the defendants discovered the amount in controversy and determining the court’s jurisdiction.
Case remanded to Denton County.