Case No. 25-0159
Christopher Seter sued Westdale Asset Management, JGB Ventures I, Joseph Beard, and Westdale Investments (Relators) on May 28, 2021, in Dallas County Court at Law No. 3, alleging breach of oral, unsigned two-year partnership and employment agreements and breach of fiduciary duty, and itemizing about $14.96 million in damages.1 Trial began July 8, 2024, and Seter says the court declared a mistrial because of Relators' conduct and reset trial.2 House Bill 19 created the Texas Business Court effective September 1, 2024, and Section 8 provides that its changes "apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024".3
This is an original proceeding for writ of mandamus. On September 30, 2024, Relators removed the case to the Business Court, First Division, and Seter moved to remand; the Business Court granted the motion on December 16, 2024, relying on prior Business Court decisions remanding removed cases commenced before September 1, 2024.1 The Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied mandamus and temporary relief in a per curiam opinion on January 24, 2025, one business day before a trial setting.2 This Court denied the petition on June 27, 2025, with Justice Sullivan, joined by Justice Young, concurring in the denial.3
Original proceeding for writ of mandamus after the Fifteenth Court of Appeals denied relief from a Business Court remand order; denied June 27, 2025, with a concurring opinion by Justice Sullivan, joined by Justice Young.4
Relators present three issues:1 1. Whether the Business Court Act applies only to cases filed on or after September 1, 2024, given that Section 8 says "commenced" rather than "filed." 2. Whether the Business Court abused its discretion in finding it lacked jurisdiction over the underlying lawsuit. 3. Whether Relators have an adequate remedy by appeal, because the Fifteenth Court of Appeals cannot review the case once it is remanded to the Dallas County court at law.
Seter frames two issues: whether the Business Court abused its discretion in finding the Act did not apply to a case commenced before September 1, 2024, and whether Relators have an adequate appellate remedy.2
Mandamus issues if the relator establishes a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal, and a trial court has no discretion to misinterpret a statute.1 Relators say the Court reviews the Business Court's order de novo.2
Whether the Business Court Act reaches a case filed before September 1, 2024.
Relators: The Act applies to actions "commenced" on or after its effective date, not only to actions "filed" after it, and it lets any party to an action within the Business Court's jurisdiction initiate removal; Relators commenced the action in the Business Court by removing it, nothing in the Act limits removal to later-filed cases, and the Business Court's contrary reading, followed in seven remands, misreads House Bill 19.1
Real Party in Interest (Seter): The Business Court correctly found the case was commenced before September 1, 2024, because a removal does not commence a new lawsuit, and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 22 provides that a suit is commenced by a petition filed with the clerk; Relators' reading would also make the Act's "commenced on or after" language superfluous.2
Adequate remedy by appeal.
Relators: The Fifteenth Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over Business Court rulings but cannot review the regional court's later judgment, so no appeal is available from a remand order.3
Real Party in Interest (Seter): Concurrent jurisdiction between the Business Court and a county court is akin to a venue question, the remand order is not final, the parties have litigated for over three years and begun a trial, and Relators may appeal after final judgment.4
Relators argued that this is the third of four cases to reach the Fifteenth Court of Appeals on the same question without a fully reasoned opinion, and that an opinion from this Court would establish a statutory-construction precedent that would enhance the State's jurisprudence.1
None
The Court gave no reasons for denying the petition; the only writing is Justice Sullivan's concurrence, which is the view of two Justices, not a holding.1 He noted that both the Business Court and the Fifteenth Court of Appeals have held that the Section 8 language forecloses removal of a civil action commenced in another trial court before the Business Court's creation.2 Relators' argument that they "commenced" the action in the Business Court by removing it was already difficult to square with Rule 22, under which a suit in a district or county court is commenced by a petition filed with the clerk, and House Bill 40's new Government Code Section 25A.021(a) confirms that "commenced" refers to the filing that gave rise to the action.3 That provision lets a party seek, on an agreed motion and with the Business Court's permission, transfer of an action commenced before September 1, 2024; once it takes effect on September 1, 2025, Relators can try to obtain an agreed motion to transfer, and in the meantime he saw no reason to upset the consistent interpretation of Section 8.4
Petition for writ of mandamus denied June 27, 2025.5
Justice Sullivan concurred in the denial, joined by Justice Young.6
The following is current as of October 9, 2026.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 02/18/2025 | Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed (Westdale Asset Management, Ltd., et al) |
| 04/28/2025 | Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Filed (Christopher Seter) |
| 06/27/2025 | Justice(s) concurring in the denial of petition Justice Sullivan filed an opinion concurring in the denial of the petition for writ of mandamus. |
| — | opinion concurring in the denial of the petition for writ of mandamus |
Review SCOTX decisions faster than ever.
With a SCOTX Report account, receive AI-generated summaries of every opinion and order, plus direct links to the briefing, opinions, and orders themselves—so you can quickly determine whether each opinion and order deserves your attention.
Create a Free Account Log In