Judge Andrea Bouressa
The Business Court has reaffirmed its decision last month to grant a plaintiff’s motion to remand a case to district court because the defendants’ motion was untimely.
Sun Metals Group, LLC v. Shuangcheng Yu, Mengling Sun, Sunmetals Products of American, Inc, and Sunmetals Products de Mexico, S.S. de C.V. (No. 25-BC01A-0050; 2026 Tex. Bus. 1; January 6, 2026) arose from Sun Metals Group’s motion to remand and request for sanctions. That motion alleged that its damages did not meet the $5 million jurisdictional threshold, and that Defendants’ motion to remove the case from district court was not timely. In an opinion published on December 5, the court remanded case to a Harris County district court on untimeliness grounds. Sun Metals Group, LLC v. Shuangcheng Yu, Mengling Sun, Sunmetals Products of America, LLC, and Sunmetals Products de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (No. 25-BC01A-0050; 2025 Tex. Bus. 48; December 5, 2025). Defendants moved for reconsideration and, alternatively, for permission to file an interlocutory appeal challenging the court’s ruling.
In an opinion by Judge Bouressa, the court denied Defendants’ motion. Once again reviewing the court’s jurisdiction as prescribed by § 25A.004(b), Government Code, the court observed that the statute grants the court jurisdiction over specified “actions.” The court has interpreted this to mean “the entire lawsuit,” encompassing all claims and counterclaims, including all joined parties’ claims. In its decision on the motion to remand, the court “consider[ed] the cumulative value of all joined parties’ claims to determine the point in time when [the] Court’s jurisdictional threshold was first satisfied, opening the window—and starting the [30-day] clock—for removal of the action to this Court.” The court initially ruled that Defendants had the necessary jurisdictional facts on a specified date but nevertheless missed the deadline by three weeks. The motion to remove was thus untimely and remand was appropriate.
The court went on to deny the request for a permissive appeal because the court’s interpretation of action “is not a question of law about which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion.” § 51.014(d)(1), CPRC. Additionally, an interlocutory appeal wouldn’t “materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation” because it didn’t involve any substantive issues or resolve any claims. District courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the business court and can resolve the same issues, so sending it back was equally efficient in any event.
