Fifteenth Court of Appeals Decision – July 3, 2025

Here’s another recent Fifteenth Court of Appeals decision on Business Court jurisdictional issues.

No. 15-25-00025  In re Kimco Developers, Inc., et al., Relators (Original Proceeding – Writ of Mandamus – Business Court Divisions 11A, Harris County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 24-BC11A-0013)

[Chief Justice Brister, Author, with Justices Field and Harris]

Jurisdiction. Where a case was commenced before September 1, 2024, the filing of an amended petition after that date naming a publicly traded company as a defendant does not create Business Court jurisdiction.

The suit involves interpretation of a limited partnership agreement and was filed in Harris County in June 2022 against a general and a limited partner. On September 20, the plaintiff filed a third-amended petition adding Relators Kimco, a publicly-traded company, asserting claims of vicarious liability, alter ego, and conspiracy. Kimco then removed the case to the Business Court, which ordered it remanded to the district court; Relators now seek mandamus.

Held: Relators argue that the case is not controlled by this Court’s decision in In re ETC Field Services, LLC, 707 S.W. 3d 924 (Tex. App. – 15th Dist. 2025, orig. proceeding) because of Texas Gov’t Code Sec. 25A.004(c), which gives the Business Court concurrent jurisdiction in an action if a party to the action is a publicly traded company; they argue that the filing of an amended petition after September 1, 2024 adding a publicly-traded party and asserting new claims brings the entire action under the Business Court’s jurisdiction. However, ETC recognizes that Chapter 25A distinguishes between commencing an action and a filing; an amended petition is a filing and not the commencement of a new action; here the action was commenced in 2022 when suit was filed in district court; a civil action cannot be commenced multiple times on a per-party basis; the addition of Section 25A.021 which permits transfer of a pre-September 1 case which would otherwise be within the jurisdiction of the Business Court does not apply, because the Section requires that such a transfer occur on an agreed motion of a party and permission of the Business Court, requirements which are not met here. The petition for the writ is denied.