Texas Business Court Decision – September 26, 2026

No. 26-bc01A-0062  Runner Runner LLC v. BLPP Holdings, LLC, et al. (1st Div. Judge Bouressa)    2026 Tex. Bus. 67      26-bc01a-0062-runner-runner-v-blpp-holdings-2026-tex-bus-67.pdf

Jurisdiction – Amount in Controversy.

Background. Runner Runner (Runner) sued BLPP Holdings and several other defendants in the 134th District Court, Dallas County. The suit is derivative on behalf of named defendant FM 900, and seeks dissolution and an accounting. Runner’s live petition alleged FM 900 owns a ranch with an estimated fair market value of around $5 million. It alleged improper expenditures, including checks to former manager defendant Frolov, an underfunding of BLPP of more than $360,000, and a disputed default notice seeking about $28,000. Defendant Miller removed the action to the Business Court in July, 2026, relying on the petition to plead an amount in controversy in excess of $5 million. Runner moved to remand, and Miller responded with a motion to strike and a response.

Issues:

1. Whether Miller’s notice of removal, based on Runner’s live pleading, sufficiently pleaded an amount in controversy above the $5 million statutory threshold.
2. Whether Runner produced proof that the pleaded facts were unreliable or that a lesser amount in controversy was readily established.
3. Whether Miler produced controverting evidence sufficient to raise a fact issue and defeat remand.

Discussion.

1. Analytic Framework. The court applies the three-step burden-shifting framework of C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox, 2025 Tex. Bus. 1, 708 S.W. 3d 223 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2025). Under that framework, a sufficiently pleaded amount controls unless a challenger shows the amount was falsely asserted or that a different amount is readily established. The removing party must then present controverting proof, or the court will remand.
2. Step One – the pleading. Miller met his initial burden. Runner’s allegations of a roughly $5 million ranch, dissolution and accounting claims, and improper expenditures, taken as true, pleaded facts supporting the Court’s jurisdiction.
3. Step Two – Runner’s proof. Runner submitted an affidavit from its sole member, Kaplin, along with a loan agreement and a deed a trust. These showed about $1.74 million in debt against that ranch as of July, 2026. Kaplin explained that the $5 million figure was an estimate of gross market value that ignored secured debt and other liabilities and was not a valuation of FM 900. The Court held that the ranch’s pleaded market value was not a reliable measure of the amount in controversy. The petition’s specific financial allegations did not close the gap, because they totaled far less than $5 million. Combined with the encumbrance, they no longer sufficed to meet Tex. Gov’t Code Sec. 25A.004(b)(2), so Runner established a lesser amount, below the jurisdictional threshold.
4. Step Three- Miller’s response. Miller relied solely on Runner’s live pleadings and presented no controverting evidence. Mere allegations cannot outweigh an evidentiary record, so Miller failed to raise a fact issue.
5. The motion for remand is granted.