In Re Westdale Asset Management, Ltd.; Jgb Ventures I, Ltd.; Joseph Beard; And Westdale Investments, L.P.

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 25-0159
══════════

In re Westdale Asset Management, Ltd., JGB Ventures I, Ltd.,
Joseph Beard, and Westdale Investments, L.P.,
Relators

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
═══════════════════════════════════════

JUSTICE SULLIVAN, joined by Justice Young, concurring in the
denial of the petition for writ of mandamus.

Relators sought to remove the underlying breach-of-contract
action from Dallas County Court at Law No. 3, where it had been
pending since 2021, to Texas’s new Business Court, which was created
via House Bill 19 on September 1, 2024. See Act of May 25, 2023, 88th
Leg., R.S., ch. 380, § 5, 2023 Tex. Gen. Laws 918, 928. They were foiled
by the following statutory text from Section 8: “The changes in law made
by this Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1,
2024.” Id. § 8. Both the Business Court and the Fifteenth Court of
Appeals have held that this Section 8 language forecloses removal of a
civil action that was commenced in another trial court prior to the
Business Court’s creation. See, e.g., In re ETC Field Servs., LLC, 707
S.W.3d 924, 926–28 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. 2025, orig. proceeding); XTO
Energy, Inc. v. Hous. Pipe Line Co., 705 S.W.3d 239, 240–42 (Tex. Bus.
Ct. 2024); Energy Transfer LP v. Culberson Midstream LLC, 705 S.W.3d
217, 220–21 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 2024).
In their mandamus petition, relators argue that they
“commenced” this action in the Business Court on September 30, 2024,
when they removed it from Dallas County Court at Law No. 3. Relators’
argument was already difficult to square with the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure, which provide that “[a] civil suit in the district or county
court shall be commenced by a petition filed in the office of the clerk.”
TEX. R. CIV. P. 22 (emphasis added). And that was before the Governor
signed House Bill 40 into law last week. Section 25A.021(a) of the
Government Code, as added by House Bill 40, now confirms that the
word “commenced” refers to the filing that gave rise to an action, not to
the filing that brought the action before the Business Court:
Notwithstanding Section 8 [of House Bill 19,] a civil action
commenced before September 1, 2024, that is within the
jurisdiction of the [B]usiness [C]ourt may be transferred to
and heard by the [B]usiness [C]ourt on an agreed motion of
a party and permission of the [B]usiness [C]ourt under
rules adopted by the [S]upreme [C]ourt for the purpose.
Act of June 1, 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., H.B. 40, § 56 (to be codified at TEX.
GOV’T CODE § 25A.021(a)) (emphasis added).
Once House Bill 40 goes into effect on September 1, 2025, relators
can try to secure and file an agreed motion to transfer this action to the
Business Court. In the meantime, I see no reason to grant mandamus
relief that would upset the consistent interpretation of Section 8 by the
Business Court and the Fifteenth Court of Appeals.

2
James P. Sullivan
Justice

OPINION FILED: June 27, 2025

3