OWL AssetCo I, LLC v. EOG Resources, Inc.

2025 Tex. Bus. 47 · Business Court of Texas, Eleventh Division · December 5, 2025 · No. Cause No. 25-BC11A-0052

Summary

The Texas Business Court denied OWL AssetCo I, LLC’s second motion to remand, holding that EOG Resources, Inc.’s removal was proper and timely under Texas Government Code § 25A.006(f). The court concluded that House Bill 40’s reduction of the Business Court’s amount-in-controversy threshold from $10 million to $5 million supplied facts establishing jurisdiction and triggered a new removal opportunity. The underlying action concerns an alleged breach of a contract for the transportation and disposal of produced water.

Holdings

  1. The enactment and effective date of House Bill 40's reduction of the amount-in-controversy threshold from $10 million to $5 million constituted a fact establishing the Business Court's jurisdiction over the action.
  2. EOG's second removal was timely because it filed its second notice of removal two days after House Bill 40's effective date, promptly after the statutory change established Business Court jurisdiction.
  3. The Business Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action under the newly reduced amount-in-controversy threshold.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether House Bill 40's reduction of the Business Court's amount-in-controversy threshold constituted a fact establishing the Business Court's jurisdiction for purposes of Texas Government Code section 25A.006(f).
  2. Whether EOG's second removal, filed two days after House Bill 40's effective date, was timely and proper.
  3. Whether the Business Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action under the newly reduced $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (27)

  • OWL AssetCo 1, LLC v. EOG Res., Inc., 2025 Tex. Bus. 30 (Tex. Bus. Ct. 8th Div. Aug. 11, 2025)(applied)
  • Tellez v. City of Socorro, 226 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. 2007)(followed)
  • Diocese of Galveston-Hous. v. Stone, 892 S.W.2d 169 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no pet.)(followed)
  • City of El Paso v. Madero Development, 803 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1991, writ denied)(followed)
  • Aleman v. Tex. Med. Bd., 573 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2019)(followed)
  • Cadena Comercial USA Corp. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 518 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. 2017)(followed)
  • Bank Direct Cap. Fin. LLC v. Plasma Fab, LLC, 519 S.W.3d 76 (Tex. 2017)(followed)
  • Alex Sheshunoff Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2006)(followed)
  • Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011)(followed)
  • In re Estate of Nash, 220 S.W.3d 914 (Tex. 2007)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 27.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Business Court Of Texas Eleventh Division