Dhannani v. Batool, 2026 Tex, Bus. 61 (11th Div.) (mem. op.)

FILED IN
BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS
BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK
ENTERED
9/11/2026
2026 	Tex. 	Bus. 	61
: 	:
THE 	BUSINESS 	COURT 	OF 	TEXAS
ELEVENTH 	DIVISION
Rashmin 	Dhannani, 	individually 	and
derivatively 	on 	behalf 	of 	Select
Novelties, 	LLC,
Vv.
Syeda 	Misbah 	Batool, 	Syed 	Ali,
Aslam 	Ajani, 	and 	Regal 	Imports,
LLC,	
CO?
 	(OP
 	CO?
 	609
 	(0?
 	(02
 	LO)
 	LO?
 	(0?
 	60D
Cause 	No. 	26-BC11A-0054	Plaintiff,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM 	OPINION 	& 	ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
q1 	On 	July 	20, 	2026, 	came 	to 	be 	heard 	Defendants' 	Motion 	to 	Remand 	and
Brief Supporting 	Remand 	("Motion"). 	At 	this 	juncture, 	having 	considered 	the 	Motion,
Plaintiffs 	Response 	to 	Defendants' Motion 	for 	Remand 	("Response"), 	the 	evidence
presented, 	the 	arguments 	of 	counsel, 	the 	current 	status 	of 	the 	law, 	and 	all 	supporting
briefs, the 	Court 	finds 	that 	the 	Motion 	should 	be 	DENIED.
1

II. 	FACTUAL 	BACKGROUND
q2 	On 	April 	3, 	2026, 	Plaintiff 	Rashmin 	Dhannani 	("Dhannan1'),
individually, 	filed 	her 	Original 	Petition 	in 	Harris 	County 	district 	court 	against 	Syeda
Misbah 	Batool, 	Syed 	Ali, 	and 	Regal 	Imports, 	LLC.! 	The 	Original 	Petition 	alleged
that 	Defendants 	removed 	and 	converted 	approximately 	$500,000 	of 	company
inventory, 	transferred 	$36,772.23 	from 	the 	company's 	operating 	account, 	seized 	or
froze 	access 	to 	business social-media 	accounts, 	removed 	business 	phones 	containing
customer 	information, 	and 	acted 	to 	form 	a 	competing 	business.
{3 	Dhannani 	sought, 	among 	other 	relief, 	a 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	and
temporary 	injunction 	and 	pleaded 	that 	she 	sought 	monetary 	relief 	of 	"$250,000.00
but 	not 	more 	than 	$1,000,000.00."3 	On 	April 	21, 	2026, 	Dhannani 	and 	Select Novelties
LLC 	("Select") 	filed 	a 	First 	Amended 	Petition 	that 	added 	Select 	as 	a 	plaintiff, 	added
Aslam 	Ajani 	as 	a 	defendant, 	and 	changed 	the 	requested 	Texas 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure 	Rule 	47 	range 	to 	monetary 	relief 	"over 	$1,000,000."4 	On 	May 	6, 	2026,
Dhannani 	filed 	a 	Second 	Amended 	Petition 	that 	reframed 	the 	action 	as 	one 	brought
by 	Dhannani 	individually 	and 	derivatively 	on 	behalf 	of 	Select. 	On 	May 	29, 	2026,
Dhannani 	filed 	a 	Third Amended 	Petition 	that 	alleged 	that 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy
exceeded 	$5 	million 	and 	that 	Defendants 	removed 	approximately 	$500,000 	in
inventory 	from 	Select's 	premises, 	transferred 	company 	funds, 	withheld 	company
1 	Pl's 	Orig. 	Pet. 	at 	J 	1.
2 	P1.'s 	Orig. 	Pet. 	at 	[J 	21-27.
3 	Id. 	at 	Jf 	1-3, 	29, 	124.
4 	Pls.' 	First 	Am. 	Pet. 	at 	JJ 	1-2, 	9.
5 	Pls.' 	Second 	Am. 	Pet.
2

accounts 	and 	customer 	information, 	misappropriated 	trade 	secrets, 	interfered 	with
Select's 	operations, 	as 	well 	as 	breached 	duties 	owed 	to 	Select.6 	Plaintiffs 	amended
their 	petition 	on 	three 	occasions 	without 	significant 	alteration 	to 	the 	relief 	sought
modifying 	the 	parties 	and 	adding 	additional 	causes 	of 	action.'
14 	Dhannani 	first 	applied 	for 	a 	temporary 	injunction 	and 	filed 	her 	original
petition 	on 	April 	3, 	2026.8 	While that 	was 	pending, 	on 	April 	21, 	2026, 	Plaintiffs 	filed
their 	First 	Amended 	Petition 	which 	likewise 	requested 	a 	temporary 	injunction.? 	On
April 	22, 	2026, 	the 	district 	court 	granted 	an 	amended 	temporary 	restraining 	order
and 	an 	order 	granting 	expedited 	discovery.!° 	On 	May 	28, 	2026, 	the 	District 	Court
granted, 	in 	part, 	Plaintiffs' 	request 	for 	temporary 	injunction.)
15 	Following 	the 	entry 	of 	the 	temporary 	injunction, 	on 	May 	29, 	2026,
Dhannani 	filed 	her 	Notice 	of 	Removal 	to 	the 	Business 	Court.!2 	Dhannani 	asserted
that 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	exceeded 	$5 	million 	and 	that 	the 	action 	fell 	within
the 	Business 	Court's 	jurisdiction; 	it 	included 	derivative 	claims, 	claims 	concerning
Select's 	governance and 	internal 	affairs, 	claims 	that 	owners 	or 	managerial 	officials
breached 	duties 	owed 	to 	Select, 	trade 	secret 	claims, 	as 	well 	as 	counterclaims 	seeking
a 	receiver 	and 	judicial 	dissolution 	under 	the 	Texas 	Business 	Organizations 	Code.}8
{6 	The 	Court 	held 	a 	status 	conference 	on 	June 	8, 	2026. 	Following 	the 	status
6 	Pls.' 	Third 	Am. 	Pet. 	24-30, 	32-43, 49-51.
T 	See 	Pl. 	Orig. 	Pet.; 	Pls.' 	First 	Am. 	Pet.; 	Pls." 	Second 	Am. 	Pet; 	Pls.' 	Third 	Am. 	Pet.
8 	Pl.'s 	Orig. 	Pet 	at 	q 	1.
9 	Pls.' 	First Am. 	Pet. 	at 	J 	62.
10 	Defendants' 	Motion 	to 	Remand 	and 	Brief 	Supporting 	Remand 	("Motion"), 	Ex. 	3.
11 	Motion, 	Ex. 	4.
12 	Pls.' 	Notice 	of Removal 	at 	JJ 	1, 	6-8.
13 	Id. 	JJ 	2-7.
8

conference, 	the 	Court 	set 	a 	briefing 	schedule 	to 	address 	(i) 	whether 	the 	removal 	of
this 	action 	from 	the 	district 	court 	was 	timely; 	and 	(ii) 	whether 	the 	Court 	has 	subject-
matter 	jurisdiction 	over 	this 	action.4 	Subsequently, 	Defendants 	filed 	their 	Motion
on 	June 	26, 	2026, 	and 	Dhannani 	filed 	her 	response 	on 	July 	6, 	2026.15
III. 	LEGAL 	STANDARDS 	AND 	ANALYSIS
A. 	Timeliness 	of 	Removal
q7 	Removal 	and 	remand 	in 	the 	Business Court 	are 	governed 	by 	the 	Texas
Government 	Code 	§ 	25A.006, 	which 	sets 	forth 	the 	rule, 	inter 	alia, 	for 	opposed 	removal
of cases 	involving 	a 	pending 	application 	for 	a 	temporary 	injunction:
fit 	an 	application 	for 	temporary 	injunction 	is 	pending 	on 	the 	date 	the
party 	requesting 	removal 	of the 	action 	discovered, 	or 	reasonably 	should
have 	discovered, 	facts 	establishing 	the 	business 	court's 	jurisdiction 	over
the 	action, 	not 	later 	than 	the 	30th 	day 	after 	the 	date 	the 	application 	is
granted, 	denied, 	or 	denied 	as 	a 	matter 	of 	law.
TEX. 	GOVT. 	CODE 	§ 	25A.006(f)(2).
{8 	This 	rule 	echoes 	the 	Texas Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure, 	which 	states 	that 	"if
an 	application 	for 	temporary 	injunction 	is 	pending 	on 	the 	date 	the 	party 	requesting
removal 	of 	the 	action 	discovered...," 	then 	the 	party 	must 	file 	their 	notice 	of 	removal
"within 	30 	days 	after 	the 	date 	the 	application 	is 	granted, 	denied, 	or 	denied 	by
operation 	of 	law." 	TEX. 	R. 	CIv. 	P. 	355(c)(2)(B).
{9 	SafeLease 	articulates 	the 	operative 	rule 	regarding 	the 	timeliness 	of removal
14 	For 	the 	purposes 	of 	this 	Memorandum 	Opinion 	and 	Order, 	the 	Court 	only 	discusses 	the 	issues
posited 	at 	the 	status 	conference 	regarding 	(i) 	timeliness 	of 	the 	removal 	and 	(ii) 	subject 	matter
jurisdiction 	the 	threshold 	amount 	in 	controversy.
15 	Motion 	at 	1; 	Response 	at 	{ 	1.
4

following 	the 	grant 	or 	denial 	of 	a 	temporary injunction.!6
The Court 	holds 	that 	the 	30-day 	removal 	deadlines 	in 	Section 25A.006
and 	Rule 	355 	do 	not 	begin 	running 	before 	the 	lawsuit 	is 	filed. 	... Because
SafeLease 	filed 	its 	notice 	of 	removal 	within 	30 	days 	of 	when 	it 	filed 	suit
and 	within 	eight 	days 	of 	the 	district 	court's 	TI 	ruling, 	the 	notice 	was
timely.17
Defendants 	argue 	that 	Plaintiffs 	have 	filed 	"successive 	and 	indefinite
dispositions 	of new, 	additional 	and 	superseding temporary 	injunction 	applications 	to
thwart 	the 	spirit 	of the 	removal 	statute."!8 	The 	record 	suggests 	otherwise; there 	have
been 	three 	iterations 	of 	injunctive 	relief: 	(i) 	an 	initial 	temporary 	restraining 	order
granted 	on 	April 	6, 	2026; 	(ii) 	an 	amended 	temporary 	restraining 	order 	granted 	on
April 	22, 	2026; 	and 	(iii) 	a 	temporary 	injunction 	order 	granted 	on 	May 	28, 	2026.19 	The
subsequent 	filings 	do 	not 	appear 	to 	constitute 	successive 	or 	new 	requests 	for 	relief;
rather, 	they 	appear 	to 	reiterate 	the 	relief 	previously 	sought 	while 	amending 	the
petitions 	to 	add 	parties 	and 	causes 	of 	action.2°
{10 	Dhannani's 	opposed 	Notice 	of 	Removal 	came 	56 	days 	after 	she 	filed 	her
original 	petition.21 	However, 	since 	the 	temporary 	injunction 	had 	been 	granted 	just
one 	day 	prior, removal 	was 	timely 	under 	the 	Texas 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	and 	the
Texas 	Government 	Code, 	Section 	25A.22 	Removal 	is 	timely 	within 	30 	days 	after 	an
16 SafeLease 	Ins. 	Services 	LLC 	v. 	Storable, 	Inc., 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	6, 	J 	9, 707 	S.W.3d 	130, 	132-33 	(8rd
Div.) 	(mem. 	op.) 	(emphasis 	added).
17 	Id.
18 	Motion 	at 	33.
19 	Motion, 	Ex.2 	4.
20 	See 	Response 	at 	[{ 	25-27.
21 	Pls.' 	Notice 	of Removal 	at 	1.
22 	TEX. 	GOVT. 	CODE 	§ 	25A.006; 	TEX. 	R. 	CIv. 	P. 	355(c)(2)(A)-(B) 	(Generally, 	opposed 	notices 	of 	removal
shall 	be 	filed 	"within 	30 	days 	after 	the 	date 	the 	party 	requesting 	removal 	of the 	action 	discovered, 	or
reasonably 	should 	have 	discovered, 	facts 	establishing 	the 	business 	court's 	authority 	to 	hear 	the
action[.]" 	The 	rule 	also 	notes 	that 	"if 	an 	application 	for 	temporary 	injunction 	is 	pending 	on 	the 	date
5

application 	for 	temporary 	injunction 	is 	granted 	or 	denied. 	TEx. 	R. 	Civ. 	P.
355(c)(2)(B)); 	see 	SafeLease, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	6 	at 	J 	7, 	707 	S.W.3d 	at 	132. 	The 	Court
finds 	the 	removal 	to 	be 	punctual.
B. 	Amount 	in 	Controversy 	Requirements
{11 	Subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	is 	a 	question 	of law 	that 	determines 	the
Court's 	authority 	to 	hear 	a 	case. 	Yaun 	v. 	Battle 	& 	Sands 	Energy 	Corp., 	2026 	Tex.
Bus. 	9, 	§ 	3, 	2026 	WL 	598409, 	at 	*1 	(11th 	Div.) 	(mem. 	op.) 	(citation 	omitted).
Regarding 	jurisdictional 	challenges 	based 	upon 	amount 	in 	controversy, 	the 	pleadings
control 	the 	analysis, 	and 	those 	pleadings 	are 	construed 	liberally 	in 	favor 	of
jurisdiction.23 	Id. 	at 	J 	4; 	Clean-Co 	Sys., 	Inc. 	v. 	Enter. 	Prods. 	Operating, 	LLC, 	2026
Tex. 	Bus. 	32, 	J 	9, 	2026 	WL 	1434278, 	at 	*3 	(11th 	Div.) 	(mem. 	op.) 	(citations 	omitted).
"(T]he 	Texas 	Business 	Court's 	enabling 	statute 	grants 	the 	[CJourt 	jurisdiction 	if 	the
suit 	involves 	(1) 	an 	amount 	in 	controversy 	of 	over 	five 	million 	dollars 	and 	(2) 	at 	least
one 	of the 	enumerated 	topics 	in 	the 	relevant 	portions 	of the 	Texas 	Government 	Code's
Chapter 	25A." 	Alamo 	Title 	Co. 	v. 	WFG Nat'l 	Title 	Co. 	of 	Tex., 	LLC, 	2026 	Tex. 	Bus. 	6,
{ 	4, 	730 	S.W.8d 	656, 	659 	(4th 	Div.); 	TEX. 	GovT 	CODE 	§ 	25A.004(b), 	(d) 	(bestowing
jurisdiction 	over 	claims 	including 	derivative 	proceedings, 	corporate 	governance,
the 	party 	requesting 	removal 	of 	the 	action 	discovered, 	or 	reasonably 	should 	have 	discovered, 	facts
establishing 	the 	business 	court's 	authority 	to 	hear 	the 	action," 	the 	party 	must 	file 	their 	notice 	of
removal 	"within 	30 	days 	after 	the 	date 	the 	application 	is 	granted, 	denied, 	or 	denied 	by 	operation 	of
law.").
23 	Yaun, 	2026 	Tex. 	Bus. 	9 	at 	J 	4, 	2026 	WL 	598409, 	at 	*1 	(quoting 	M&M 	Livestock, 	LLC 	v. 	Robinson,
2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	29, 	J 	36, 	2025 	WL 2207943, 	at 	* 	7 	(8th 	Div.) 	('what 	matters 	at this 	stage 	is 	only 	whether
Plaintiffs' 	pleadings-liberally 	construcd--cvidence 	an 	intent 	to 	recover 	damages 	exceeding 	the
minimum 	jurisdictional 	limits, 	regardless 	of how 	likely 	such 	a 	recovery 	might 	be.")).
6

breach 	of 	fiduciary 	duty, 	and 	qualified 	transactions, 	amongst 	other 	topics 	not
relevant 	to 	this 	dispute.).
{12 	As 	the 	parties 	seeking 	removal, 	Plaintiffs 	bear 	the 	initial 	burden 	of
establishing 	the 	Court's 	jurisdiction 	over 	this 	action. 	See 	TEX. 	GOV'T 	CODE 	ANN. 	§
25A.006(d); 	see 	also 	TEX. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	355(b)(2)(A). 	The 	Business 	Court 	only 	has
jurisdiction 	if 	the 	value 	of 	the 	rights 	at 	issue 	exceeds 	$5 	million. 	C 	Ten 	31 	LLC 	v.
Tarbox, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	1, 	13, 	32, 	708 	S.W.3d 	223, 	231, 	237 	(8rd 	Div.).
Over 	the 	last 	140 	years, 	the 	Texas 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	repeatedly 	held
that, 	when 	a 	party 	challenges 	whether 	a 	suit 	is 	within 	the 	court's
amount-in-controversy 	limits, 	the 	pleadings 	control 	unless 	the
challenger 	shows 	that: 	(a) 	the 	pleadings 	are 	fraudulent, 	alleging 	a 	false
amount 	as 	a 	"sham" 	to 	wrongfully 	obtain 	jurisdiction; 	or 	(b) 	the 	amount
in 	controversy 	is 	"readily 	establish[ed]" 	as 	outside 	the 	Court's
jurisdiction.?4
Id. 	at 	1 	46 	(citations 	omitted).
113 	Under 	this 	burden-shifting 	standard, 	"a 	party's 	good-faith 	allegation 	of
damages 	controls 	unless 	another 	party 	presents 	evidence 	that 	the 	amount 	was 	falsely
asserted 	to 	wrongly 	obtain 	or 	avoid 	jurisdiction." 	Yaun, 	2026 	Tex. 	Bus. 	9 	at 	J 	4, 	2026
WL 	598409, 	at 	*1 	(quoting 	C 	Ten 	31, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	1 	at 	J] 	49-50, 	708 	S.W.3d 	at
243). 	The 	question 	is 	what 	the 	parties 	seek 	to 	recover 	in 	their 	pleadings, 	not 	what
they 	ultimately 	will 	recover 	at 	the 	conclusion 	of 	the 	case. 	Black 	Mountain 	SWD, 	LP
v. 	NGL 	Water 	Solutions 	Permian, 	LLC, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	24, 	J 	12, 	7 	18 	S.W.3d 	281, 	286
24 	Defendants 	contend 	that 	the 	Plaintiffs 	have 	"inflate[d] 	and 	exaggerate[d]" 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy
to 	forum 	shop. 	Motion 	at 	24. 	That 	said, 	as 	the 	Business 	Court 	noted 	in 	SafeLease, 	while 	the 	removal
process 	has 	the 	potential 	to 	be 	abused 	for 	forum 	shopping, 	this 	risk 	is 	not 	unique 	to 	the 	Business
Court. 	SafeLease, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	6 	at 	11, 	707 	S.W.3d 	at 	134. 	Forum-shopping 	risks 	exist 	in 	various
aspects 	of 	Texas 	Civil 	Procedure, 	and 	"regardless, 	the 	Court 	must 	effectuate 	the 	statute 	as 	written
and 	will 	not 	second 	guess 	the 	policy 	determinations 	made 	by 	the 	Legislature-the 	body 	duly 	elected
to 	make 	such 	policy 	decisions." 	Id.
7

(8th 	Div.) 	(citation 	omitted). 	The 	Court 	must 	construe 	the 	pleadings 	liberally 	in 	favor
of 	jurisdiction. 	Clean-Co 	Sys., 	2026 	Tex. 	Bus. 	32 	at 	¥ 	9, 	2026 	WL 	1434278, 	at 	*3.
"(T]he 	Texas 	Supreme 	Court 	has 	repeatedly 	held 	that 	a 	party 	should 	not 	have 	to
marshal 	its 	evidence 	or 	prove 	its 	claims 	to 	survive 	early 	jurisdictional 	challenges."
C 	Ten 	31, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	1 	at 	J 	58, 	708 	S.W.3d 	at 	244 	(citations 	omitted).
{14 	We 	continue 	to 	apply 	that 	standard 	to 	removal 	and remand 	proceedings
in 	the 	Business 	Court. 	The 	Court 	must 	presume 	as 	true, 	consistent 	with 	the 	letter
and 	spirit 	of 	the 	law 	during 	the 	pleading 	stage 	of 	litigation, 	the 	facts 	purported 	in
support 	of Plaintiffs' 	alleged 	amount 	in 	controversy 	in 	the 	Third 	Amended 	Petition.25
Indeed, 	the 	Third 	Amended 	Petition 	states 	that 	the amount 	in 	controversy 	exceeds
$5 	million 	and 	that 	Select's 	going-concern 	value 	before 	Defendants' 	alleged 	conduct
"far 	exceeded 	$5 	million."26
q15 	Plaintiffs 	have 	met 	their 	burden 	of 	establishing 	an 	amount 	in
controversy 	over 	the 	minimum 	threshold. 	Therefore, 	the 	burden 	shifts 	to 	the
Defendants 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	(i) 	the 	amount 	was 	wrongly 	asserted 	(fraudulent 	or
sham) 	to 	obtain 	jurisdiction, 	or 	(ii) 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	could 	be 	readily
25 	Pls.' 	Third 	Am. 	Pet. 	at 	1; 	see 	Slant 	Operating, 	LLC 	v. 	Octane 	Energy 	Operating, 	LLC, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus.
22,11 	11 	14, 	717 	S.W.3d 	409, 	415 	(8th 	Div.) 	(discussing 	the 	standards 	during 	the 	pleading 	stage 	of
litigation 	and 	confirming 	that, 	with 	respect 	to 	a 	plea 	to 	the 	jurisdiction, 	"[i]f 	the 	evidence 	implicates
the 	merits 	of 	the 	case, 	the 	court 	must 	take 	all 	evidence 	favorable 	to 	the 	plaintiff 	as 	true 	and 	'indulge
every 	reasonable inference 	and 	resolve 	any 	doubts 	in 	the 	[plaintiff's] 	favor."") 	(citations 	omitted).
26 	Pls.' 	Third 	Am. 	Pet. 	14 	8, 28 	("Select's 	revenues 	for 	just 	the 	past 	twelve 	months 	were 	over 	$2.5
million. 	Select's 	value 	as 	a 	going 	concern 	before 	Defendants' 	illegal 	actions 	far 	exceeded 	$5 	million.
Perfume 	stores 	are 	valued 	at 	anywhere 	from 	2x 	to 	3.5x 	seller's 	discretionary 	earnings, 	which 	would
put Select's 	value 	well 	over 	$5 	million. 	Through 	their 	actions, 	Defendants 	have 	destroyed 	Select's 	value
in 	the 	market, 	its 	brand, 	and 	its 	following 	with 	customers, 	and 	have 	caused 	a 	substantial 	loss 	of
revenue. 	Defendants 	further 	seek 	to 	dissolve 	Select, 	which 	would 	destroy the 	entirety 	of Select's 	value
and 	success."); Response 	at 	J 	10. 	See 	supra, 	FACTUAL 	BACKGROUND.
8

established 	as 	below 	the 	threshold 	minimum. 	Aspire 	Com., 	LLC 	v. 	Stephenson, 	2026
Tex. 	Bus. 	23, 	{7 	14 	15, 	2026 	WL 	1288105, 	at 	*2 	(11th 	Div.) 	(mem. 	op.) 	(citing 	C 	Ten
31, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	1 	at 	[{ 	46, 49, 	708 	S.W.3d 	at 	242 	43).
{16 	Defendants' 	Motion 	does 	not 	satisfy 	either 	requirement 	under 	this
burden. 	They 	fail 	to 	demonstrate 	that 	the 	damages 	asserted 	were 	pled 	in 	bad 	faith
or 	wrongly 	asserted, 	and 	further 	fail 	to 	readily 	establish 	damage 	amount 	below 	the
jurisdictional 	threshold.27 	Defendants 	do 	not 	controvert 	the 	alleged 	amount 	with 	a
verified 	affidavit 	or 	evidence.28 	Contra 	Black 	Mountain 	SWD, 	2025 	Tex. 	Bus. 	at
18-21, 	718S.W.3d 	at 	288 	89 	(wherein 	the 	Defendant 	filed 	a 	declaration 	by 	the 	CFO
outlining 	a 	damage 	calculation 	below 	the 	amount 	in 	controversy 	threshold,
successfully 	meeting 	the 	burden 	shifting 	standard).29 	In 	essence, 	the 	Court 	must 	find
that 	Plaintiffs 	have 	established 	subject 	matter 	jurisdiction, 	and 	Defendants 	have
failed 	to 	provide 	evidence 	besides 	conclusory 	allegations 	to 	rebut 	it.30
IV. 	CONCLUSION
117 	Plaintiffs 	timely 	removed 	their 	case 	to 	the 	Business 	Court 	and 	have
adequately 	pled 	a 	sufficient 	amount 	in 	controversy 	to 	establish 	jurisdiction.
27 	See 	Response 	at 	11 	20-21.
28 	Td. 	"Defendants 	could 	have 	easily 	controverted 	that 	pleading 	with 	their 	own 	evidence, 	establishing
that 	the 	removal 	was 	wrongful, 	but 	instead, 	they 	make 	six 	conclusory, 	single 	sentence 	points, 	which
are 	not 	evidence." 	(citations 	omitted).
29 	Id. 	at 	J 	26 	"Ignoring 	the 	plain 	language 	of 	Tex 	Gov't 	Code 	§25A.0056 	and 	SafeLease, 	Defendants
instead 	engage 	in 	red-herring 	arguments..." 	(citations 	omitted).
30 	See 	Motion 	at 	25-27; 	see 	also 	Response 	at 	J] 	20-21.
9

It 	is 	hereby 	ORDERED, 	ADJUDGED 	AND 	DECREED 	that 	consistent
SO 	ORDERED.
with 	this 	opinion, 	the 	Court 	DENIES 	Defendants' 	Motion 	to 	Remand.
a 	Wa 	he
Texas 	Business 	Court, 	Eleventh 	Division
SIGNED: 	September 	11, 	2026
on 	Adrogué
10