Texas Business Court Decision – August 5, 2026

No. 26-BC01B-0067  In re Radical Hoops, Ltd. and Radical Mavericks, II, LLC, Petitioners (First Division, Judge Whitehill) 2026 Tex. Bus. 55

Rule 202 Discovery Petition/Jurisdiction and Remand.

Background. Petitioners Radical Hoops and Radical Mavericks II filed a Rule 202 petition in the 134th District Court seeking pre-suit deposition discovery from respondent Arena Development Intermediate, LLC (ADI). The dispute stems from Mark Cuban’s sale of his majority interest in the Dallas Mavericks to the Adelson family. As part of that transaction, Cuban and the Adelsons agreed he could participate in future business opportunities, including an anticipated destination casino. In 2024, the Adelsons began pursuing a new arena at the defunct Valley View Mall in North Dallas, and in June 2026 ADI (a Delaware entity the Adelsons formed, whose membership is undisclosed under Delaware law) secured an option to purchase a portion of the property without informing Cuban. Petitioners sought Rule 202 pre-suit discovery to investigate anticipated tortious interference claims regarding existing and prospective contracts related to the transaction. ADI removed the Rule 202 proceeding to the Business Court, and petitioners moved to remand, arguing the Business Court lacked jurisdiction.

Issues:

1. Whether a Rule 202 pre-suit deposition petition constitutes an “action” removable to the Business Court under Texas Government Code Sec. 25A.006(d) – Held: YES; and
2. If so, whether the proceeding falls within the court’s statutory subject matter jurisdiction – Held: YES.

Discussion:

The court denies the motion to remand.

1. Relying on the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Jaster v. Comet II Construction, 438 S.W. 3d 556, 563-64 (Tex. 2014), the court finds that “action” is broader than “lawsuit” and encompasses any proceeding by which a party seeks to enforce a claimed right – including Rule 202 petitions, which enforce a party’s right to obtain pre-suit discovery. The court distinguishes petitioners’ cited authorities  – Yadav v. Agrawad, 2025 Tex. Bus. 7, 708 S.W.3d 246 (3rd. Div.); Osmose Utl. Servs, Inc. v. Navarro Cnty. Elec. Coop., 2025 Tex. Bus. 3, 707 S.W.3d 117 (1st. Div.); and  Tema Oil & Gas Co. v. ETC Field Services, 705 S.W.3d 226, 2024 Tex. Bus. 3, 705 S.W.3d 226 (8th Div.) – as addressing different questions (jurisdictional timing and partial removal of claims) not bearing on the issue of whether Rule 202 proceedings qualify as “actions.” It also found their reliance on Montoya Frazier v. Maxwell, 734 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App. – 2d Dist. 2025, pet. denied) to be misplaced as the case’s exclusion of Rule 202 proceedings from the Texas Citizens Participation Act amended “legal action” definition implicitly confirmed such proceedings would otherwise qualify as legal actions.
2. On subject matter jurisdiction, the court found the anticipated tortious interference claims arose from “qualified transactions” (the multi-billion-dollar Mavericks sale and the more than $50 million Valley View Option) exceeding the $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold, satisfying statutory jurisdiction under Sec. 25A.001(14) and Sec. 25A.004(d)(1). The court reserved the issue of constitutional subject matter jurisdiction (ripeness) for the upcoming Rule 202 hearing.