Sun Metals Group v. Yu, 2025 Tex. Bus. 48 (1st Div.) (mem. op.)

2025 Tex. Bus. 48
The Business Court of Texas,
First Division
SUN METALS GROUP, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
SHUANGCHENG YU,
MENGLING SUN, SUNMETALS
PRODUCTS OF AMERICA, LLC,
and SUNMETALS PRODUCTS
DE MEXICO, S.A. de C.V.,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Cause No. 25-BC01A-0050
═══════════════════════════════════════
Memorandum Opinion & Order for Remand
═══════════════════════════════════════
¶1 	Before the Court is Plaintiff Sun Metals Group, LLC’s Motion to
Remand Baselessly and Tardily Removed Action Involving Less than $5million
in Pleaded and Disclosed Compensatory Damages and Request for Evidentiary
Hearing on Motion for Sanctions Under TRCP 355 and Ch. 25A. Plaintiff’s
motion challenges this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction on two grounds: (1)
Plaintiff’s 	asserted 	damages 	do 	not 	meet 	this 	Court’s 	$5,000,000
FILED IN
BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS
BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK
ENTERED
12/5/2025

Page 2
jurisdictional 	threshold, 	and 	(2) 	Defendants’ 	removal 	was 	untimely.
Following 	an 	oral 	hearing 	on 	December 	1, 	2025, 	the 	Court 	GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion to remand for untimeliness.
¶2 	Section 25A.006(f) 	of the Texas Government Code allows a
party’s unilateral removal to the Business Court in two circumstances. See
T EX . G OV ’T C ODE § 25A.006(f)(1)-(2). 	As is relevant here, Subsection (1)
allows a party to remove the action “not later than the 30th day after the later
of: . . . (B) 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.” T EX . G OV ’T C ODE § 25A.006(f)(1); see also Tex.
R. Civ. P. 355(c)(2)(A).
¶3 	In its motion to remand, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ removal
of this action is untimely because the “lawsuit has been pending for ten (10)
months” in the district court. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand at ¶ 1. However,
the window for removal under Section 25A.006(f)(1)(B) is open through the
“30th day after . . . the party requesting removal of the action discovered, or
reasonably should have discovered, facts establishing the business court’s
jurisdiction over the action.” T EX . G OV ’T C ODE § 25A.006(f)(1)(B).

Page 3
¶4 	Defendants contend that the 30-day window for removal opened
on October 27, 2025, when they filed Defendants’ Fourth Amended Answer,
Affirmative Defenses and Third Amended Counterclaim, which contained a
counterclaim with damages in the amount of $710,000. See Defendants’
Fourth Amended Answer at ¶¶ 81-82. As Defendants see it, those damages
pushed the amount in controversy over this Court’s jurisdictional threshold
amount for the first time—and constituted facts establishing this Court’s
jurisdiction.1 Because Defendants filed their Notice of Removal on October 28,
2025, they believe their removal was timely. But having closely examined the
pleadings in this action, the Court concludes Defendants’ basis for removal
was evident no later than September 8, 2025.
¶5 	On that date, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition
Request for Declaratory Judgment, which raised Plaintiff’s asserted damages
1 Plaintiff argues Defendants’ counterclaims are irrelevant to the Court’s analysis. But the
Business Court has made clear that the amount in controversy applies to an “action,” not
individual claims. C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox, 2025 Tex. Bus. 1, ¶ 25 (3rd Div. 2025). Thus,
when calculating the amount in controversy, the Court “consider[s] all claims properly
joined before the Court, rather than as a per-claim minimum.” Id. All claims properly joined
before the Court—that is, the “entire lawsuit”—includes counterclaims. Chaudhry v.
Stillwater Oz Dev. Fund, 2025 Tex. Bus. 31, ¶ 92 (1st Div. 2025) (stating that party’s
“counterclaims are part of th[e] lawsuit”); see also In Re T. Bently Durant, 720 S.W.3d 438,
442 (Tex. App.—15th Dist. 2025) (stating that “‘action’ refers to the entire lawsuit”).
Defendants’ counterclaims were pending at removal, rendering their value relevant.

Page 4
and costs to “over $3,343,694.58.” Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition at ¶
3.1. Defendants read that pleading as putting Plaintiff’s 	“identified and
ascertainable 	governance-related 	claims” 	at 	a 	“total 	[of] 	at 	least
$4,669,518.37.” Defendants’ Response to Motion at ¶ 15. No finding is made
as to whether Defendants’ reading is accurate because it is immaterial to the
outcome.
¶6 	Importantly, 	by the time 	Plaintiff 	filed its Second Amended
Petition, Defendants had already asserted materially significant damages in
their 	counterclaims. 	Defendants’ 	Second 	Amended 	Answer, 	Affirmative
Defenses 	and 	Counterclaims, 	filed 	(before 	Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended
Petition) on August 13, 2025, contained, inter alia, alternative causes of
action for breach of contract with damages in the amount of $499,823.79 and
for money had and received with damages in the amount of $712,529.45. See
Defendants’ Second Amended Answer at ¶¶ 53, 56; see also Defendants’
Original Answer at ¶¶ 44, 47, 49 (identifying same causes of action but not in
the alternative).
¶7 	Consequently, even taking the damage calculations limned in
Defendants’ response as accurate, see Defendants’ Response to Motion at ¶ 14,
the damages which Defendants contend satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional

Page 5
requirement were facially pleaded by the combination of Plaintiff’s September
8, 2025 petition with Defendants’ prior August 13, 2025 counter-petition—
not, as Defendants argue, upon the combination of Plaintiff’s September 8,
2025 petition with Defendants’ later October 27, 2025 counter-petition. Thus,
the deadline for removing this action from the district court to the Business
Court elapsed on October 8, 2025, 30 days after Plaintiffs’ September 8, 2025
petition was filed. Defendants’ Notice of Removal, filed October 28, 2025, was
untimely.
¶8 	IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand
is GRANTED, and this matter, including Plaintiff’s pending request for
sanctions, is remanded to the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County,
Texas, for further proceedings.
_____ 	_________________
ANDREA K. BOURESSA
Judge of the Texas Business Court,
First Division
SIGNED ON: December 5, 2025.

Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 108793607
Filing Code Description: Proposed Order
Filing Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order for Remand
Status as of 12/5/2025 4:49 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name
David Ritter
David Ritter
David Ritter
Natalie Ortiz
Skyela Richards
Tracy Lin
Oscar ReyRodriguez
BarNumber Email
dritter@ritterspencercheng.com
dritter@ritterspencercheng.com
dritter@ritterspencercheng.com
admin@ritterspencercheng.com
srichards@ritterspencercheng.com
tlin@sandorslaw.com
REY@orrattorney.com
TimestampSubmitted
12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM
12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM
12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM
12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM
12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM
12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM
12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM
Status
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT