Texas Business Court Decision – December 5, 2025
OWL AssetCo,I, LLC v. EOG Resources, Inc. (Eleventh Div., Judge Bullard)
Jurisdiction – House Bill 40. OWL and EOG contracted for OWL to provide transportation and disposal of produced water from EOG’s oil and gas operations. OWL filed this breach of contract action in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, alleging EOG did not assure that the water met the contract’s specifications and seeking indemnification for associated property damages. EOG removed the case to the Business Court in May, 2025, claiming the court had jurisdiction under Section 25A.004(d)(1) and (6); OWL moved to remand, arguing EOG could not satisfy the then-current $10 million amount-in-controversy threshold because OWL’s damages for oil remediation were $8.2 million; the Business Court agreed, and granted the remand motion – see OWL AssetCo 1, LLC, 2025 WL 2306527 (July 25, 2025).
The Texas Legislature passed House Bill, effective September 1, 2025, lowering the jurisdictional amount-in-controversy threshold to $5 million. On September 3, 2025, EOG filed a second removal notice to the Business Court citing the new, lower threshold and the $8.2 million in controversy. OWL opposed the motion and sought remand, contending the removal was improper because a change in the law did not amount to the discovery of facts establishing the Business Court’s jurisdiction and that EOG did not discover any new facts within 30 days of the Bill’s effective date because it always knew the amount in controversy.
HELD: (1) House Bill 40’s reduction of the amount-in-controversy is a “fact” sufficient to establish the Court’s jurisdiction; in this case, no set of facts could establish the Court’s jurisdiction over the action before the implementation date of House Bill 40; (2) House Bill 40 is retroactive to all cases filed in the Business Court since the Court’s inception; EOG could not discover facts establishing the Court’s jurisdiction until the House Bill lowered the amount-in- controversy threshold “and brought the action back into the Court’s purview;” and (3) EOG promptly filed the second Removal Notice within 2 days of the Bill’s effective date, and its action was timely, making removal proper.