Dallas Sports Group v. DSE Hockey Club, 2026 Tex. Bus. 24 (1st. Div.) (mem. op.)

2026 Tex. Bus. 24
The Business Court of Texas,
1st Division
DALLAS SPORTS GROUP, LLC
AND RADICAL ARENA, LTD.,
Plaintiffs
v.
DSE HOCKEY CLUB, L.P. and
DALLAS SPORTS &
ENTERTAINMENT, L.P.,
Defendants
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Cause No. 25-BC01B-0049
═══════════════════════════════════════
M EMORANDUM O PINION AND O RDER R EGARDING A TTORNEYS ’ F EES
═══════════════════════════════════════
[¶ 1] 	Before the court are the parties’ Civil Practice and Remedies Code
§ 37.009 attorneys’ fees requests. For the following reasons, the court orders
that each side shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs in this case.
[¶ 2] 	Dallas 	Sports 	Group, 	LLC 	and 	Radical 	Arena, 	Ltd. 	(the
Mavericks), 	invoked 	the 	court’s 	declaratory 	judgment 	jurisdiction 	to
determine 	whether 	they 	effectively 	redeemed 	DSE 	Hockey 	Club, 	L.P.’s
FILED IN
BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS
BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK
ENTERED
5/11/2026

-2-
(Hockey Club) interests in a general partnership and that partnership’s general
partner. The Mavericks also requested emergency and permanent injunctive
relief. 	Later, they amended their petition to add Hockey Club’s parent
company, Dallas Sports & Entertainment, L.P. (DSELP), as a defendant.
(Hockey Club amended its answer and counterclaim to add affirmative
defenses for, and a counterclaim by, DSELP.) The “Stars” refers to Hockey
Club and DSELP unless indicated otherwise.
[¶ 3] 	The parties’ substantive dispute focused on (i) the Mavericks’
claim that they effectively redeemed the Stars’ ownership interest in the
entities operating the City of Dallas’s American Airlines Center where both
teams play their home games and (ii) the Stars’ counterclaims.
[¶ 4] 	On April 2, 2026, the court ruled on seven dispositive motions.
See Dallas Sports Group, LLC v. DSE Hockey Club, L.P., 2026 Tex. Bus. 15,
___ S.W.3d ____ (1st Div.). 	A month later, it decided the last three
dispositive motions. As a result, the Mavericks won on all substantive issues
and are thus entitled to their requested declaratory and injunctive relief and a
denial of the Stars’ counterclaims.
[¶ 5] 	The next day the court conferred with counsel regarding the
attorneys’ fees issue. The court began by asking the parties to discuss what

-3-
they wanted to do with the attorneys’ fees issue and invited “everybody to
pursue whatever claims and rights and whatever they want.”1
[¶ 6] 	The court then referenced Civil Practice and Remedies Code
§ 37.009, 2 which provides that in a declaratory judgment case “the court may
award costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees as are equitable and
just.” 3
[¶ 7] 	Pursuant to this statute’s terms, the award of fees and costs is not
mandatory, and the court may award fees and costs “to either party in all
cases.” 	MBM Fin. Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., L.P., 292 S.W.3d 660,
669 (Tex. 2009). 	That is, “[a] prevailing party in a declaratory judgment
action is not entitled to attorney’s fees simply as a matter of law; entitlement
depends on what is equitable and just, and the trial court’s power is, in that
respect, discretionary.” 	Save Our Springs Alliance, Inc. v. Lazy Nine Mun.
Dist., 198 S.W.3d 300, 320 (Tex. App.—6th Dist. 2006, pet. denied).
[¶ 8] 	Next, the court stated that under § 37.009, the factfinder decides
the amount of a party’s reasonable and reasonable attorneys’ fees, but the
1 May 5, 2026, Rough Transcript (Tr.) at 2.
2 Tr. at 2.
3 The court did not exclude other possible attorneys’ fees grounds.

-4-
court has “broad authority to take the fact-findings and decide what to do with
them.” 4
[¶ 9] 	The court added:
So[,] without ruling but giving you an inclination as to kind of
what I think my starting point is to let you guys decide what we
want to do with next week, my inclination is to start with each
side pays their own fees. And[,] so[,] given that information, do
you all want a trial next week? If we have a trial next week, do
you want to [go] to the Court? Do you want a jury trial? Let me
know.
[¶ 10] 	Thereafter, the Mavericks’ counsel responded that a jury trial on
attorneys’ fees might not be the best use of the jury’s and parties’ time.5 So,
to obviate the need for a jury trial, he said that the night before he offered “to
stipulate as to reasonableness, necessity, and amount of their fees and ours.” 6
[¶ 11] 	Next, he suggested two solutions, the latter being each side pays
their own fees. 7 The court responded, “[w]ell, I’m wide open to being
persuaded to do something else.”8 The Mavericks’ counsel acknowledged that
opportunity and said he would discuss the matter with his clients. 9
4 Tr. at 3.
5 Tr. at 3.
6 Tr. at 3-4.
7 Tr. at 4.
8 Tr. at 4.
9 Tr. at 4.

-5-
[¶ 12] 	The Stars’ counsel echoed the Mavericks’ statements and said
he would discuss the issue during the mediation scheduled for the next day. 10
He added that the parties and court should adopt a structure that promotes
expediency if the court were to decide the attorneys’ fees issue.11
[¶ 13] 	The court and parties then discussed the logistics should there
be a jury trial on attorneys’ fees.12
[¶ 14] 	Thereafter, the court acknowledged that the parties obviously
had been thinking about what to do with the attorneys’ fees issues. 13 It then
added that, without saying that it was exactly what it would do, it seemed that
a logical starting point would be to have everybody pay their own fees but that
the court was “open to being persuaded either way.”14
[¶ 15] 	The next day, the parties delivered a written stipulation that:
1. Plaintiffs and Defendants have incurred attorneys’ fees
with respect to their claims for Declaratory Judgment
under section 37.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code;
2. The 	Plaintiffs’ 	attorneys’ 	fees 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$3,600,000 are reasonable and necessary.
10 Tr. at 4.
11 Tr. at 4-5.
12 Tr. at 6-7.
13 Tr. at 7.
14 Tr. at 7.

-6-
3. The 	Defendants’ 	attorneys’ 	fees 	in 	the 	amount 	of
$3,600,000 are reasonable and necessary.
4. By 	these 	stipulations, 	neither 	party 	concedes 	the
propriety of any fee recovery by the opposing party and
request 	the 	Court 	award 	fees 	as 	it 	determines 	are
equitable and just.
5. The parties request that the Court take notice of these
stipulations of fact.15
[¶ 16] 	In subsequent emails the parties confirmed that they waived
further presentations regarding attorneys’ fees and asked the court to rule on
the issue.
[¶ 17] 	The court considered the record, the parties’ stipulation, and
their waiver of their opportunity to persuade the court regarding an attorneys’
fees request. 	Based on the above, the court finds and concludes pursuant to
Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 37.009 that each side paying its own fees
and costs is equitable and just in this case.
It is so ORDERED.
BILL WHITEHILL
Judge of the Texas Business Court,
First Division
SIGNED: May 11, 2026
15 May 7, 2026, Stipulation of Facts.

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: 114719536
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding Attorneys'
Fees
Status as of 5/11/2026 1:14 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name
Laura Lisenbee
Chris Bankler
Charles L.Babcock
Pam Collins
Chad Baruch
Minoo S.Blaesche
Dallas Admin
Elizabeth Pittman
Theron Bentz
Gabriela Barake
Sarah Starr
Ashley Collins
Frank Carroll
Joshua Sandler
Cathi Trullender
Julie Robertson
Jacqueline Jaramillo
Ben Hamel
Andrew Patterson
Hugo Acevedo
John David Janicek
Lea Ann Del Angel
BarNumber Email
llisenbee@jw.com
cbankler@jw.com
cbabcock@jw.com
pcollins@jw.com
chad@jtlaw.com
mblaesche@jw.com
dallasadmin@adjtlaw.com
epittman@jw.com
tbentz@jw.com
gbarake@jw.com
sstarr@jw.com
acollins@adjtlaw.com
focarroll@winstead.com
jsandler@winstead.com
ctrullender@adjtlaw.com
jrobertson@winstead.com
jacqueline@jtlaw.com
bhamel@winstead.com
apatterson@winstead.com
hacevedo@winstead.com
jjanicek@winstead.com
ldelangel@jw.com
TimestampSubmitted
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
Status
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT

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: 114719536
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding Attorneys'
Fees
Status as of 5/11/2026 1:14 PM CST
Case Contacts
Lea Ann Del Angel
Sarah Balasny
Business Court 1B
Douglas WAlexander
Kirsten MCastaneda
Max Ward
ldelangel@jw.com
sbalasny@winstead.com
BCDivision1B@txcourts.gov
dalexander@adjtlaw.com
kcastaneda@adjtlaw.com
mward@winstead.com
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
5/11/2026 12:08:35 PM
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT
SENT