The Business Court has denied a title company’s motion to remand its claims against another title company and former employee for conspiring to steal its customers.
Alamo Title Company v. WFG National Title Company of Texas, LLC (No. 25BC04-0017; 2026 Tex. Bus. 6; February 3, 2026) arose from a dispute between title companies in which Alamo accused WFG of raiding its employees and customers and misappropriating sensitive business information. Alamo alleged tortious interference with its current and prospective customer contracts, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting Alamo’s former president and employees in breaching their fiduciary duties. Alamo sued in Bexar County district court, and WFG remanded to the Business Court. Alamo moved to remand.
In an opinion by Judge Sharp, the court denied the motion. Alamo argued that since the suit didn’t involve over $5 million in controversy, the court had no jurisdiction. Alamo pleaded past and future monetary damages but stated that the “past and ongoing irreparable harm [was] impossible to measure in monetary damages, justifying its right to seek injunctive relief.” Its petition identified no discrete amount in controversy aside from its “Rule 47 disclosure stating that its sister company, Chicago Title, seeks [in a separate but nearly identical lawsuit] at least one million dollars in damages.”
Applying the burden-shifting framework to analyze its jurisdiction (citations omitted), the court, having determined that Plaintiff’s petition did not state a specific amount-in-controversy, the court looked to WFG’s removal notice. Here the notice pleaded that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, excluding statutory interest and fees. The burden thus shifted to Alamo to refute that assertion, but Alamo failed to attach any evidence to its motion. WFG pointed to Alamo’s discovery responses, which disclosed $4.7 million in damages for 2025, ongoing accrual of interest, additional amounts for unjust enrichment, and other elements of damages. WFG likewise informed the court that Alamo “denied” a request for admission that Alamo was not seeking monetary relief in excess of $5 million. Based on this evidence, the court ruled that WFG’s removal notice controlled. Alamo pleaded a minimum amount in controversy of $4.7 million with numerous add-ons of indeterminate amount. The court further rejected Alamo’s contention that future damages could not be included in determining amount in controversy.
Alamo attempted to argue that the court had no jurisdiction over the substatantive topic of the suit, but the court observed that Alamo’s claims involved an action “alleging that an owner, ocntrolling person, or managerial official breached a duty owed to an organization or owner of an organization by reason of the person’s status as an owner, controlling person, or managerial official, including the breach of a duty of loyalty or good faith.” § 25A.004(b)(5), Government Code. Alamo’s pleading alleges that its former president and WFG conspired to steal Alamo’s customers and employees, constituting a breach of fiduciary duties in transferring sensitive business information to WFG. Alamo’s suit also pertained to the misappropriation of intellectural property, which falls under the court’s jursidiction under § 25A.004(d)(4)-(5). The court concluded that it had statutory jurisdiction over the entire action.
