In last week's opinion in In re ColossusBets Limited, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals offered a clear illustration of how Texas’ new Business Court interacts with traditional pleading amendments — and what happens when a plaintiff tries to exit that forum by shedding jurisdiction‑triggering claims.
Jerry Reed, winner of a $7.5 million Lotto Texas jackpot, alleged that the defendants had “rigged” an earlier drawing by buying nearly every number combination. That earlier drawing paid out $95 million, and Reed claimed the scheme depressed the jackpot he later won. He then sued the defendants in Travis County District Court.
Two defendants removed the case to the Business Court. Reed moved to remand, but the court initially denied the motion, pointing to allegations that fell squarely within the Business Court’s jurisdiction over organizational governance and internal‑affairs disputes.
That's where things got interesting. Determined to return to Travis County District Court, Reed amended his petition twice — ultimately “expressly disclaiming” any allegation or theory that could invoke Business Court jurisdiction. Within minutes, he renewed his remand request. Over defendants’ objections, the Business Court reconsidered its earlier ruling and remanded the case.
The defendants sought mandamus relief from the Fifteenth Court. They did not argue that jurisdiction independently existed — only that once the Business Court properly exercised jurisdiction, it could not later lose it — even after pleading amendments.
The Fifteenth Court disagreed. In an opinion by Chief Justice Brister, the court held that (1) trial courts retain plenary authority to revisit interlocutory orders; (2) Rule 355(f)’s reference to “improper removal” does not bar remand when jurisdiction evaporates after amended pleadings; and (3) by expressly disavowing jurisdiction‑triggering theories, Reed impliedly and irrevocably waived them. Because the Business Court properly granted reconsideration and ordered remand under these circumstances, the Fifteenth Court denied the petition.
Takeaway: Business Courts may reconsider earlier remand rulings. Plaintiffs who genuinely wish to avoid Business Court jurisdiction may do so — but only by clearly and permanently abandoning any claim or theory that would place them within that jurisdictional framework.
/Passle/MediaLibrary/Images/2026-02-13-21-20-42-917-698f95aa751df97040693913.png)