The Business Court has denied a motion by defendants in a misappropriation of trade secrets dispute to remand the case to the Harris County district court in which it was originally filed.
Aspire Commercial, LLC v. Christopher Stephenson and BES.AI, LLC (2026 Tex. Bus. 23; May 8, 2026) arose from a suit filed in Harris County district court for miappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, equitable relief, and injunctive relief. The court promptly issued a TRO against Defendants Stephenson and, later, BES. AI. Before that court could rule on Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary injunction, Plaintiff removed the case to the Business Court, alleging damages exceeding $5 million. Plaintiff alleged that following the April 7, 2026 hearing on the TI, it discovered additional misconduct by Defendants, increasing the amount in controversy above the $5 million threshold. Plaintiff subsequently filed a supplement to its application pleading the factual bases supporting the amount in controversy. Defendants moved for remand.
In an opinion by Judge Stagner, the court denied the motion to remand. The statute specifically authorizes a party to remove to the court within 30 days after the date an application for a temporary injunction is granted, denied, or denied as a matter of law. § 25A.006(f)(2). As to the amount in controversy question. Plaintiff had the initial burden to plead facts affirmatively demonstrating the court’s jurisidiction. If it does so, the burden shifts to Defendants “to present evidence showing either: (1) that the pleadings are fraudulent or a sham to obtain jurisdiction; or (b) that the amount in controversy can be ‘readily establish[ed] as outside the [c]ourt’s jurisdiction.’”
Defendants first asserted that removal from district court was premature because that court had not yet ruled on Plaintiff’s application for a TI. As noted above, the statute allows removal if the application is pending at the time the removing party discovers facts establishing Business Court jurisdiction. What the statute does not say is that removal to the Business Court is not permitted until the district court rules on the application. In other words, the 30-day deadline merely sets an outside deadline for removal. This reading of the statute comports with its purpose, which is to get the case in “the proper tribunal as early as practicable” in order to “promote[] efficiency, reduce[] duplication of judicial labor, and allow[] a single court to manage the case consistently through its critical stages.” Requiring a delay in removal “would also create incentives for strategic delay and forum testing.” The statute thus does not bar a party from removing a pending application for a TI.
Turning to the amount in controversy issue, the court observed that Plaintiff had pleaded facts supporting an amount in excess of $5 million, “including allegations concerning the threatened loss of substantial business revenue and potential royalty damages associated with third-party access to its confidential trade secrets.” Defendants, on the other hand, presented no evidence to the contrary, other than the argument of their attorney. Defendants further argued that Plaintiff was engaged in forum shopping, but court rightly observed that “this argument is immaterial to whether remand is proper under” the statute or Rule 355, TCRP. In fact, the court’s interpretation of the statute to disregard a party’s possible motive for removal “reduces—rather than encourages—the type of strategic maneuvering Stephenson identifies….[H]is interpretation would require parties to litigage substantial TI proceedings in district court before deciding whether removal would be strategically advantageous in light of how those proceedings unfold.” The court thus denied Defendants’ motion to remand.
