Ornelas v. Herrera

2025 Tex. Bus. 51 FILED IN
BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS
BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK
ENTERED
12/18/2025

The Business Court of Texas,
Fourth Division

DELFINO ORNELAS, III, §
INDIVIDUALLY; DELFINO §
ORNELAS, III, DERIVATIVELY ON §
BEHALF OF I AM TRUCKING, LLC; § Cause No. 25-BC04B-0001
DELFINO ORNELAS, II §
DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF §
VERACITY OILFIELD SERVICES, §
LLC §
Plaintiffs §
V. §
§
ERASMO HERRERA §
Defendant §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ql Before the court is the Joint Advisory on Early Legal Issues, filed by the

parties on September 26, 2025, and the Plaintiffs' Brief on Early Legal Issues, filed

on October 24, 2025. The Advisory proposed two legal issues for resolution early in

the case to narrow the issues, facilitate settlement, or otherwise increase efficiency

or expedite resolution:

e Whether recent resolutions with other defendants affects the Court's
Jurisdiction over the remaining claims; and
e Whether Erasmo Herrera owes fiduciary duties to I Am Trucking, LLC
and/or Veracity Oilfield Services, LLC.
q2. The court held a pretrial conference and hearing regarding the Joint Advisory

on Early Legal Issues on December 9, 2025. Having heard the argument of counsel

and considered the pleadings and briefing, the court holds as follows:

A. Partial disposition of the suit did not divest the court of jurisdiction.

q3 The court concludes it has jurisdiction of the suit following the agreed

disposition of the claims against most defendants.

q4 In determining the jurisdictional amount in controversy, "the plaintiff's

pleadings are determinative unless the defendant specifically alleges that the

amount was pleaded merely as a sham for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining

jurisdiction, or the defendant can readily establish that the amount in controversy is

insufficient[.] Bland ISD v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000); see ET

Gathering & Processing LLC v. Tellurian Prod. LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 11, q 9, 709

§.W.3d 1, 5 (11th Div. 2025) ("in absence of proof of fraud or a sham pleading, the

allegations in the pleadings control to determine whether this court has jurisdiction

to hear this case.").

q5 Plaintiffs initially sued five defendants, pleading at least five million dollars

in controversy under this court's jurisdictional statute. TEX. GOV'T CODE

§ 25A.004(b). Plaintiffs later settled their disputes with all defendants except

Herrera, and in September 2025 the court entered agreed orders dismissing with

prejudice all claims against the settling defendants. Plaintiffs then amended their

2
petition to include only those claims against Herrera, maintaining that "the amount

in controversy in this case exceeds $5 million, excluding interest, statutory

damages, exemplary damages, penalties, attorney's fees, and court costs." Pls.' 2nd

Am. Pet. 0 14.

q6 At the hearing on the Joint Advisory, Plaintiffs conceded that some "initial

estimates" of their damages models fell below five million dollars once claims

against the other defendants were dismissed, explaining that discovery is ongoing

as to damages and other matters. But Plaintiffs' Second Amended Petition-the live

pleading-alleges an amount in controversy exceeding the court's five-million-

dollar jurisdictional threshold, and no party contends the pleading is a sham or

claims to have readily established a lower amount in controversy. This is not a case

in which the plaintiff's amendments destroyed the court's jurisdiction. See Reed v.

Rook TX, LP, 2025 Tex. Bus. 34 q 2, 721 S.W.3d 25, 29 n.3 (8rd Div. 2025) (citing

Royal Canin U.S A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025) (allowing plaintiff,

as "master of the complaint, to eliminate federal claims from amended pleading to

ensure a state forum)).

q7 In any event, partial disposition of this suit could not divest the court of

subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining claims. The court's

governing statute provides that the jurisdictional "amount in controversy . . . is the

total amount of all joined parties' claims." TEX. GOV'T CODE § 25A.004(i). When,
as here, a plaintiff's original petition seeks actual damages within a trial court's

jurisdiction, the court properly acquires jurisdiction over the suit. See Cont'! Coffee

Prods. Co. v. Cazarez, 937 S.W.2d 444, 449 (Tex. 1996). Plaintiffs, Herrera, and the

settled defendants comprised the "joined parties," with all original claims

collectively satisfying the requisite amount in controversy. And, in the amount-in-

controversy context, "where jurisdiction is once lawfully and properly acquired, no

later fact or event can defeat the court's jurisdiction." Id. at 449; see Atlas IDF, LP

v. NexPointReal Est. Partners, LLC, 2025 Tex. Bus. 16, q 42, 715 S.W.3d 390, 397

(1st Div. 2025) (holding jurisdiction is determined by the amount recoverable under

the pleadings at the suit's commencement). For example, once fixed at the onset of

the case, the pleaded jurisdictional amount in controversy cannot be reduced by a

later judgment in a lower amount, even if damages cannot ultimately be proved at

all." Bland ISD, 34 8.W.3d at 554. Just as final judgment of all claims at the

conclusion of the case cannot retroactively negate the amount in controversy at the

suit's inception, agreed disposition as to some parties' claims did not reduce this

suit's total jurisdictional amount in controversy.

q8 Here, Plaintiffs' original and amended petitions properly invoked the court's

jurisdiction under Texas Government Code section 25A.004 based on an amount in

1
Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the claims against Herrera fall within the court's
supplemental jurisdiction. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 25A.004(f). Having concluded it retains original
jurisdiction of the remaining claims, court declines to reach the issue.
4
controversy exceeding five million dollars. The court retains jurisdiction of this suit

following the partial settlement.

B. Any fiduciary duties owed by Herrera hinge on evidence not before the
court.

q9 The parties jointly ask whether Herrera owes fiduciary duties to either or both

of the Plaintiff entities: I Am Trucking and Veracity. Under Texas law, agents

generally have a fiduciary duty to act solely for the benefit of their principals in

matters relating to the agency. Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 773 S.W.3d 193,

200 (Tex. 2002). In such agency-related matters, the employee may not compete

against the employer during employment, see id. at 200-02, but may "mak[e]

preparations for a future competing business venture[.]
77
Wooters v. Unitech Int'l,

Inc., 513 S.W.3d 754, 763 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2017> pet. denied).

q10 "Where the underlying facts are undisputed, determination of the existence,

and breach, of fiduciary duties are questions of law, exclusively within the province

of the court." Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Tex. 2005). In this procedural

posture, though, the parties have not yet presented evidence regarding the existence

of Herrera's agency or employment relationship with I Am Trucking or Veracity.

Accordingly, the court declines to rule at this stage as to whether Herrera owed

fiduciary duties to either or both entities.

For the reasons above, the court retains jurisdiction of this suit. Pending

further order of this court, it is ORDERED that a pretrial hearing and jury trial of

5
this matter is set for the week of March 30, 2026, in Bexar County, Texas. The

pretrial conference shall be held on March 3, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. At the conference,

parties should be prepared to identify any then-outstanding legal issues and to

discuss any other pending matters in the case, including past or upcoming

engagement in alternative dispute resolution. At the pretrial conference the parties

and the court will also discuss the proposed pretrial order to be jointly submitted by

the parties under the Scheduling Order by February 27, 2026.

SO ORDERED.

STACY ROGER SHARP Mary
Judge of the Texas Business Court,
Fourth Division

SIGNED ON: December 18, 2025

6