Mazda Motor of North America, Inc. sought to terminate the franchise of All Star Imports, Inc. d/b/a World Car Mazda North, a Mazda dealer. Mazda says World Car failed to perform airbag recalls and submitted falsified recall records, and that an administrative law judge (ALJ), after a five-day contested hearing in July 2021, found good cause to terminate.¹ The Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles signed an order on June 14, 2023 largely adopting the ALJ's recommendation and allowing termination, and both sides moved for rehearing. The Board says a majority voted by email on August 7, 2023 to grant the motions, and it reduced that decision to written orders dated August 9 and 10, 2023; Mazda says the motions for rehearing were overruled by operation of law on August 8, 2023.²

World Car petitioned for judicial review in Travis County district court on September 6, 2023 as a protective measure, and Mazda also sought review and removal to the appellate court. The Board filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing it timely acted on rehearing and retained jurisdiction, and the district court (Judge Amy Clark Meachum) agreed and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction on January 11, 2024.¹ The Fifteenth Court of Appeals (Fields, J., joined by Brister, C.J., and Farris, J.) affirmed, holding the Board timely acted when its members voted. All Star Imports, Inc. v. Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, No. 15-24-00017-CV, 2025 WL 2079587 (Tex. App.⁠—15th Dist. July 24, 2025, pet. filed) (mem. op.).² Mazda petitioned for review and World Car cross-petitioned on November 7, 2025. The Court requested briefs on the merits; Mazda and World Car filed theirs on September 11, 2026, and the Board's and World Car's response briefs are due in November 2026.

Petition for review and cross-petition for review from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals, which affirmed dismissal for want of jurisdiction of a suit for judicial review of an agency order concerning termination of a motor-vehicle dealer's franchise. The Court requested merits briefing; the petitioners' briefs are on file, and the respondents' briefs are due in November 2026. The Court has not yet granted either petition.

Mazda presents five issues:

1. whether the court of appeals erred in holding the Board retained jurisdiction after August 8, 2023, when the individual email votes of Board members before a written order were not the Board's "act"
2. whether the Board gave a strong enough reason under Government Code section 2001.058(e) to change the ALJ's finding that World Car's untrustworthiness supported termination
3. whether the Board misunderstood Occupations Code section 2301.455(a) by treating a dealer's trustworthiness as irrelevant
4. whether the Board's explanation for rejecting the ALJ's finding on World Car's investments and obligations ($1.8 million and $3 million "large enough") complied with section 2001.058(e)
5. whether that created an impermissible categorical standard¹

World Car presents only the threshold question whether the courts have jurisdiction over the challenges to the Board's underlying order, including whether it became final and appealable, and which challenges proceed in which court.² The Board presents whether it retains jurisdiction over the contested case when it timely voted to grant the rehearing motions under section 2001.146.³

Petitioner (Mazda Motor of North America, Inc.): The Legislature's jurisdictional deadlines are unforgiving, and the Board lost jurisdiction on August 8, 2023 when the motions for rehearing were overruled by operation of law, so its August 9 and 10 orders were void. An "act" of an administrative agency has a specific legal meaning, "agency action," which requires a Board decision, not the individual votes of members before a written order; Baker v. Bizzle provides guidance. On the merits, Mazda argues the ALJ's detailed findings that World Car materially breached trust by falsifying hundreds of recall repairs should have stood, the Board's reason that trust is "too volatile and fickle" to support termination was legally insufficient, and its "categorical" standard that $1.8 million in investment and $3 million in obligations are "large enough" to weigh against termination was unworkable and prejudiced Mazda's substantial rights.¹

Cross-Petitioner (All Star Imports, Inc. d/b/a World Car Mazda North): The Court should decide the threshold jurisdictional question, which it says is cleanly presented and turns on whether the Board timely "acted" under section 2001.146(c), a question it says the email vote answers because subsection (d) authorizes the Board to vote by email. If the June 14 order is final and appealable, then, at a minimum, Mazda's petition for judicial review was untimely and its attempted removal of the case to the court of appeals was barred, and Mazda's attempt to raise merits issues is misguided.²

Respondent (Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles): The Board "acted" under the plain meaning of the word when a majority voted by email to grant rehearing, as the Administrative Procedure Act permits, so it retained jurisdiction over the contested case. The Board calls this a question of first impression but a simple one, correctly decided below.³

Mazda says the case involves questions of subject-matter jurisdiction and statutory construction important to Texas jurisprudence, namely what it means for an agency to "act" on a rehearing motion within a jurisdictional deadline and how closely an agency must explain its changes to an ALJ's findings.¹ World Car says the Court has jurisdiction to decide the threshold legal question.² The Board answers that the issue is simple and was correctly decided and no review is needed.³

None