Texas Appellate Court Decisions – February 21, 2025
As has been noted, this blog will cover Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ decisions related to the developing law concerning the Business Court’s operations and jurisdiction. On February 21, 2025, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals issued two decisions regarding appellate review of Business Court remand orders. In the first case, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals determines that it lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from Business Court remand orders. In the second decision, the court denies ETC’s application for a writ of mandamus from the remand order, holding: (1) civil actions transferred to the Business Court by removal must be remanded if they were commenced in another court before September 1, 2024; and (2) while such remand orders are subject to review by mandamus according to the general rules applying to review of pretrial orders, those rules to not justify mandamus relief here.
No. 15-24-00124-CV ETC Field Services, LLC FKA, Regency Field Services, LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Company.
On Appeal from the Business Court to the 15th Court of Appeals
[Brister, Chief Justice, Author, with Justices Field and Farris]
ETC appeals an order by the Business Court remanding a civil action back to the local trial court where it was originally filed. The question presented is whether a direct appeal to the court of appeals is allowed from a remand order, contrary to the general rule that unless a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have jurisdiction over final judgments. Held: no statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal of a remand order from the Business Court; nor is the remand order a final judgment, as it does not dispose of any parties or issues other than the Business Court’s jurisdiction; finally, the court rejects ETC’s argument that the Business Court’s remand order was appealable because it was in the nature of a plea to the jurisdiction because an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a plea to jurisdiction is available only if the plea was filed by a governmental unit – see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Sec. 51.014(a)(8) (an order denying such a plea by a nongovernmental party is reviewable only by mandamus and because ETC filed a separate mandamus action challenging the remand order, the court need not deal with the issue – the writ application is denied in the case cited below).
No. 15-24-00131-CV In re ETC Field Services, LLC, Relator
[Brister, Chief Judge, Author, with Justices Field and Farris]
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from a Business Court Remand Order
This is one of several original proceedings now pending before the court challenging an order by the Business Court remanding to the district court a civil action commenced before September 1, 2024. The court holds that under the bill creating the Court, which states that the changes in law made by the Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024, removal to the Business Court does not commence a new civil action, but merely transfers an existing one; as a result, the new removal statute does not apply to actions commenced prior to September 1, and the Business Court did not abuse its discretion in remanding this case to the District Court of Tarrant County, where it was commenced on March 17, 2017. See also, ETC Field Servs., LLC v. TEMA Oil and Gas Co, No. 15-24-00124-CV (Tex. App. – 15th Dist., Feb. 21, 2025), where the court holds that no interlocutory appeal is available in these circumstances.
The court goes on to state “in these early days of business court litigation, remand and removal is subject to review by mandamus according to the same principles and rules as in any other pretrial orders;” those rules do not, however, justify relief here.