Ornelas v. Herrera, 2025 Tex. Bus. 51 (4th Div.) (mem. op.)

FILED IN
BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS
BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK
ENTERED
12/18/2025
ql
2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	51
The 	Business 	Court 	of Texas,
Fourth 	Division
DELFINO 	ORNELAS, 	III, 	§
INDIVIDUALLY; 	DELFINO 	§
ORNELAS, 	III, 	DERIVATIVELY 	ON 	§
BEHALF 	OF 	I 	AM 	TRUCKING, 	LLC; 	§ 	Cause 	No. 	25-BC04B-0001
DELFINO 	ORNELAS, 	II 	§
DERIVATIVELY 	ON 	BEHALF 	OF 	§
VERACITY 	OILFIELD 	SERVICES, 	§
LLC 	§
Plaintiffs 	§
V. 	§
ERASMO 	HERRERA §
§
Defendant 	§
MEMORANDUM 	OPINION
Before 	the 	court 	is 	the 	Joint 	Advisory 	on 	Early 	Legal 	Issues, 	filed 	by 	the
parties 	on 	September 	26, 	2025, 	and 	the 	Plaintiffs' 	Brief on 	Early 	Legal 	Issues, 	filed
on 	October 	24, 	2025. 	The 	Advisory 	proposed 	two legal 	issues 	for 	resolution 	early 	in
the 	case 	to 	narrow 	the 	issues, 	facilitate 	settlement, 	or 	otherwise 	increase 	efficiency
or 	expedite 	resolution:
e 	Whether 	recent 	resolutions 	with 	other 	defendants 	affects 	the 	Court's
Jurisdiction 	over 	the 	remaining 	claims; 	and
e 	Whether 	Erasmo 	Herrera 	owes 	fiduciary 	duties 	to 	I 	Am 	Trucking, 	LLC
and/or 	Veracity 	Oilfield 	Services, 	LLC.

q2.
q3
q4
q5
The 	court 	held 	a 	pretrial 	conference 	and 	hearing 	regarding 	the 	Joint 	Advisory
on 	Early 	Legal 	Issues 	on 	December 	9, 2025. 	Having 	heard 	the 	argument 	of 	counsel
and 	considered the 	pleadings 	and 	briefing, 	the 	court 	holds 	as 	follows:
A. 	Partial 	disposition 	of the 	suit 	did 	not 	divest 	the 	court 	ofjurisdiction.
The 	court 	concludes 	it 	has 	jurisdiction 	of 	the 	suit 	following 	the 	agreed
disposition 	of the 	claims 	against 	most defendants.
In 	determining 	the 	jurisdictional 	amount 	in 	controversy, 	"the 	plaintiff's
pleadings 	are 	determinative 	unless 	the 	defendant 	specifically 	alleges 	that 	the
amount 	was 	pleaded 	merely 	as 	a 	sham 	for 	the 	purpose 	of 	wrongfully 	obtaining
jurisdiction, 	or 	the 	defendant can 	readily 	establish 	that 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	is
insufficient[.] 	Bland 	ISD 	v. 	Blue, 	34 	S.W.3d 	547, 	554 	(Tex. 	2000); 	see 	ET
Gathering 	& 	Processing 	LLC 	v. 	Tellurian 	Prod. 	LLC, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	11, 	q 	9, 	709
§.W.3d 	1, 	5 	(11th 	Div. 	2025) 	("in 	absence 	of proof 	of 	fraud 	or 	a 	sham 	pleading, 	the
allegations 	in 	the 	pleadings 	control 	to 	determine 	whether 	this 	court 	has 	jurisdiction
to 	hear 	this 	case.").
Plaintiffs 	initially 	sued 	five 	defendants, 	pleading 	at 	least 	five 	million 	dollars
in 	controversy 	under 	this 	court's 	jurisdictional 	statute. 	TEX. 	GOV'T 	CODE
§ 	25A.004(b). 	Plaintiffs 	later 	settled 	their 	disputes 	with 	all 	defendants except
Herrera, 	and 	in 	September 	2025 	the 	court 	entered 	agreed 	orders 	dismissing 	with
prejudice 	all 	claims 	against 	the 	settling 	defendants. 	Plaintiffs 	then 	amended 	their
2

q6
q7
petition 	to 	include 	only 	those 	claims 	against 	Herrera, 	maintaining 	that 	"the 	amount
in 	controversy 	in 	this 	case 	exceeds 	$5 	million, 	excluding 	interest, 	statutory
damages, 	exemplary 	damages, 	penalties, 	attorney's 	fees, 	and 	court 	costs." 	Pls.' 	2nd
Am. 	Pet. 	0 	14.
At 	the 	hearing 	on 	the 	Joint 	Advisory, 	Plaintiffs 	conceded 	that 	some 	"initial
estimates" 	of 	their 	damages 	models 	fell 	below 	five 	million 	dollars 	once 	claims
against 	the 	other 	defendants 	were 	dismissed, 	explaining that 	discovery 	is 	ongoing
as 	to 	damages 	and 	other 	matters. 	But 	Plaintiffs' 	Second 	Amended 	Petition-the 	live
pleading-alleges 	an 	amount 	in 	controversy 	exceeding 	the 	court's 	five-million-
dollar 	jurisdictional 	threshold, 	and 	no 	party 	contends 	the 	pleading 	is 	a 	sham 	or
claims 	to 	have 	readily 	established 	a 	lower 	amount 	in 	controversy. 	This 	is 	not 	a 	case
in 	which 	the 	plaintiff's 	amendments 	destroyed 	the 	court's 	jurisdiction. 	See 	Reed 	v.
Rook 	TX, 	LP, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	34 	q 	2, 	721 	S.W.3d 	25, 	29 	n.3 	(8rd 	Div. 	2025) 	(citing
Royal 	Canin 	U.S 	A., 	Inc. 	v. 	Wullschleger, 	604 	U.S. 	22, 	35 	(2025) 	(allowing 	plaintiff,
as 	"master 	of the 	complaint, 	to 	eliminate 	federal 	claims 	from 	amended 	pleading 	to
ensure 	a 	state 	forum)).
In 	any 	event, 	partial 	disposition 	of 	this 	suit 	could 	not 	divest 	the 	court 	of
subject-matter 	jurisdiction 	to 	adjudicate 	the 	remaining 	claims. 	The 	court's
governing 	statute 	provides that 	the 	jurisdictional 	"amount 	in 	controversy 	. 	. 	. 	is 	the
total 	amount 	of 	all 	joined 	parties' 	claims." 	TEX. 	GOV'T 	CODE 	§ 	25A.004(i). 	When,

q8
as 	here, 	a 	plaintiff's 	original 	petition 	seeks 	actual 	damages 	within 	a 	trial 	court's
jurisdiction, 	the 	court 	properly 	acquires 	jurisdiction 	over 	the 	suit. 	See 	Cont'! 	Coffee
Prods. 	Co. 	v. 	Cazarez, 	937 	S.W.2d 	444, 	449 (Tex. 	1996). 	Plaintiffs, 	Herrera, 	and 	the
settled 	defendants 	comprised 	the 	"joined 	parties," 	with 	all 	original 	claims
collectively 	satisfying 	the 	requisite 	amount 	in 	controversy. 	And, 	in 	the 	amount-in-
controversy 	context, 	"where 	jurisdiction 	is 	once 	lawfully 	and 	properly 	acquired, 	no
later fact 	or 	event 	can 	defeat 	the 	court's 	jurisdiction." 	Id. 	at 	449; 	see 	Atlas 	IDF, 	LP
v. 	NexPoint
(1st 	Div. 	2025) 	(holding jurisdiction 	is 	determined 	by 	the 	amount 	recoverable 	under
the 	pleadings 	at 	the 	suit's 	commencement). 	For 	example, 	once 	fixed 	at 	the 	onset 	of
the case, the 	pleaded 	jurisdictional 	amount 	in 	controversy 	cannot 	be 	reduced 	by 	a
later 	judgment 	in 	a 	lower 	amount, 	even 	if 	damages 	cannot 	ultimately 	be 	proved at
all." 	Bland 	ISD, 	34 	8.W.3d 	at 	554. 	Just 	as 	final 	judgment 	of 	all 	claims 	at 	the
conclusion 	of the 	case 	cannot 	retroactively 	negate 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	at 	the
suit's 	inception, 	agreed 	disposition 	as 	to 	some 	parties' 	claims 	did 	not 	reduce 	this
suit's 	total 	jurisdictional 	amount 	in 	controversy.
Here, 	Plaintiffs' 	original 	and 	amended 	petitions 	properly 	invoked 	the 	court's
Real Est. 	Partners, 	LLC, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	16, 	q 	42, 	715 	S.W.3d 	390, 	397
jurisdiction 	under 	Texas 	Government 	Code 	section 	25A.004 	based 	on 	an 	amount 	in
1 	Plaintiffs 	argue 	in 	the 	alternative 	that 	the 	claims 	against 	Herrera 	fall 	within 	the court's
supplemental 	jurisdiction. 	See 	TEX. 	GOV'T 	CODE 	§ 	25A.004(f). 	Having 	concluded 	it 	retains 	original
jurisdiction 	of 	the 	remaining 	claims, 	court 	declines 	to 	reach 	the 	issue.
4

q9
q10
controversy 	exceeding 	five 	million 	dollars. 	The 	court 	retains 	jurisdiction 	of this 	suit
following 	the 	partial 	settlement.
B. 	Any 	fiduciary 	duties 	owed 	by 	Herrera 	hinge 	on 	evidence 	not 	before 	the
court.
The 	parties 	jointly 	ask whether 	Herrera 	owes 	fiduciary 	duties 	to 	either 	or 	both
of 	the 	Plaintiff 	entities: 	I 	Am 	Trucking 	and 	Veracity. 	Under 	Texas 	law, 	agents
generally 	have 	a 	fiduciary 	duty 	to 	act 	solely 	for 	the 	benefit 	of 	their 	principals 	in
matters 	relating 	to 	the 	agency. 	Johnson 	v. 	Brewer 	& 	Pritchard, 	P.C., 	773 	S.W.3d 	193,
200 	(Tex. 	2002). 	In 	such 	agency-related 	matters, 	the 	employee 	may 	not 	compete
against 	the 	employer 	during 	employment, 	see 	id. 	at 	200-02, 	but 	may 	"mak[e]
preparations 	for 	a 	future 	competing 	business 	venture[.] 77
Wooters 	v. 	Unitech 	Int'l,
Inc., 	513 	S.W.3d 	754, 	763 	(Tex. 	App.-Houston 	[1st 	Dist.] 	2017> 	pet. 	denied).
"Where 	the 	underlying 	facts 	are 	undisputed, determination 	of 	the 	existence,
and 	breach, 	of fiduciary 	duties 	are 	questions 	of law, 	exclusively 	within 	the 	province
of the 	court." 	Meyer 	v. 	Cathey, 	167 	S.W.3d 	327, 	330 	(Tex. 	2005). 	In 	this 	procedural
posture, 	though, 	the 	parties 	have 	not 	yet 	presented 	evidence 	regarding 	the 	existence
of 	Herrera's 	agency 	or 	employment 	relationship 	with 	I 	Am 	Trucking 	or 	Veracity.
Accordingly, 	the 	court 	declines 	to 	rule 	at 	this 	stage 	as 	to 	whether 	Herrera 	owed
fiduciary 	duties 	to 	either 	or 	both 	entities.
For 	the 	reasons 	above, 	the 	court 	retains 	jurisdiction 	of 	this 	suit. 	Pending
further 	order 	of 	this 	court, 	it 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	a 	pretrial 	hearing 	and 	jury 	trial 	of
5

this 	matter 	is 	set 	for 	the 	week 	of 	March 	30, 	2026, 	in 	Bexar 	County, 	Texas. 	The
pretrial 	conference 	shall 	be 	held 	on 	March 	3, 	2026 	at 	1:30 	p.m. 	At 	the 	conference,
parties 	should 	be 	prepared 	to 	identify 	any 	then-outstanding 	legal 	issues 	and 	to
discuss 	any 	other 	pending 	matters 	in 	the 	case, 	including 	past 	or 	upcoming
engagement 	in 	alternative 	dispute 	resolution. 	At 	the 	pretrial 	conference 	the 	parties
and 	the 	court 	will 	also 	discuss 	the 	proposed 	pretrial 	order 	to 	be 	jointly 	submitted 	by
Mary
Judge 	of 	the 	Texas 	Business 	Court,
Fourth 	Division
the 	parties 	under 	the 	Scheduling 	Order 	by 	February 	27, 	2026.
SO 	ORDERED.
STACY 	ROGER 	SHARP
SIGNED 	ON: 	December 	18, 	2025
6