Texas Business Court Decision – September 11, 2026

No. 26-BC11A-0054   Rashmin Dhannani, etc. v. Syeda Misbah Batool, et al. (Eleventh Division, Judge Adrogue) 2026 Tex. Bus. 61

Business Court Jurisdiction.

Background.  Plaintiff Dhannani filed her original complaint in April, 2026 in Harris County District Court alleging defendants removed and converted approximately $500,000 in Select Novelties’ company inventory, transferred $36,000 from the company’s operating account, seized its social media accounts and phones, and formed a competing company. She sought a TRO and a temporary injunction, pleading damages between $250,000 and $1 million. Plaintiff’ amended her complaint three times, adding parties, reframing the suit as derivative on behalf of Select Novelties (including corporate governance claims), and ultimately alleging that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million based on Select’s destroyed going-business value, lost revenue, and misappropriated trade secrets.

The district court granted a TRO, and an amended TRO; on May 28, 2026, it granted in part plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction. The next day, May 29, Dhannani filed a Notice of Removal to the Business Court, asserting jurisdiction based on derivative claims, corporate-governance claims, breach-of-fiduciary claims, trade secret claims and counterclaim for receivership and judicial dissolution under the Texas Business Organization Code. Defendants moved to remand, and the court held a status conference limiting briefing to (1) timeliness of removal and (2) subject-matter jurisdiction based on the amount-in-controversy threshold.

Issues Presented:

1. Whether Dhannani’s Notice of Removal – filed 56 days after the filing of the original petition but one day after the temporary injunction ruling – was timely under Texas Government Code Sec. 25A.006(f)(2) and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 355(c)(2)(B);  Held: Yes.
2. Whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million to establish the Business Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and whether defendants met their burden to rebut that showing. Held: Yes and No.

Held:

1. On the question of timeliness, under Sec. 25A.006(f)(2) and Rule 355(c)(2)(B), the 30-day removal clock runs from the grant, denial, or denial-as-a-matter of law of a pending temporary injunction application, not from the filing of suit. Relying on SafeLease Ins. Services LLC v. Storable, Inc., 2025  Tex. Bus. 6, 707 S.W.3d 130 (3rd Div.), the Court rejects defendant’s argument that plaintiffs’ successive petitions were an abusive, indefinite expansion of the removal window. The record showed only three genuine iterations of injunctive relief (the initial TRO, the amended TRO, and the May 28 temporary injunction), and the intervening amendments reiterated existing relief  while adding parties and causes of action rather than seeking new relief. Because plaintiff removed one day after the temporary injunction was granted – well within the 30 days provided – removal was timely.
2. On the question of amount in controversy, subject matter jurisdiction turns on whether the suit involved an amount in controversy over $5 million and an enumerated Chapter 25A topic – see Tex. Gov’t Code Sec. 25A.004(b), (d); Alamo Title Co. v. WFG Nat’l Title Co. of Tex., LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 6, 730 S.W.3d 656 (4th Div.). Pleadings control this inquiry and are construed liberally in favor of jurisdiction, with the burden shifting to the challenger to show the amount was fraudulently asserted or is readily shown to be below the threshold. Yaun v. Battle & and Sands Energy Corp., 2026 Tex. Bus. 9, 2026 WL 598409) (11th Div.). The Third Amended Petition alleged Select’s going-concern value “far exceeded $5 million,” supported by revenue figures and industry valuation multiples, thereby satisfying plaintiffs’ initial burden. In response, defendants offered only conclusory arguments and no controverting affidavit or evidence – contrast Black Mountain SWD, LP v. NGL Water Solutions Permian, LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 24, 718 S.W.3d 281 (8th Div.), where a CFO declaration with competing damages calculations below the amount-in-controversy threshold successfully rebutted jurisdiction. Because defendants failed to meet their burden, the Court found jurisdiction was established.