A September 2026 ruling from the Texas Business Court's First Division offers a clear lesson for parties considering removal: pleading a jurisdictional amount in controversy is only the starting point. When a plaintiff challenges those numbers with actual evidence, the removing party must respond in kind or face remand.

What Happened

In Runner Runner LLC v. BLPP Holdings, LLC, et al., defendant Miller removed a business dispute from Dallas County district court to the Texas Business Court, relying on the plaintiff's own petition to establish the required amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. The petition referenced a ranch property with an estimated fair market value of approximately $5 million and alleged various financial irregularities involving the company.

The plaintiff moved to remand, submitting an affidavit from its sole member and supporting loan documents showing the property carried approximately $1.74 million in debt as of the removal date. That affidavit also clarified that the $5 million figure was a gross market value estimate that did not account for the company's liabilities. The remaining financial irregularities alleged in the petition, totaling a fraction of the jurisdictional threshold, did not close the gap.

Miller's (the removing party) response relied entirely on the same pleadings he had already cited. He offered no competing evidence. The court granted remand.

Why It Matters

The Business Court applied the burden-shifting framework first articulated in C Ten 31 v. Tarbox (2025). That framework places the initial burden on the removing party to plead sufficient facts, but it shifts the burden once the opposing party presents evidence undermining those facts. At that point, the removing party must produce controverting proof, not simply point back to the petition.

This case confirms that a pleaded asset value, without accounting for encumbrances or liabilities, may not reliably establish the amount in controversy. Gross value and net value are not the same thing for jurisdictional purposes.

Key Takeaways

• Pleadings alone may not be enough. A petition's asset valuation can satisfy the initial pleading burden, but it becomes vulnerable the moment the opposing party introduces evidence of encumbrances, liabilities, or other factors reducing net value.
• Prepare your evidentiary record before removal. Removing parties should identify in advance what evidence they would present if the amount in controversy is challenged, including appraisals, financial statements, or damages analyses.
• Gross asset value is not synonymous with controversy value. Courts will look at what is actually at stake, not just the face value of an asset.
• Inaction at step three is fatal. Under the C Ten 31 framework, a removing party who fails to produce controverting evidence when the burden shifts will lose the jurisdictional fight, regardless of what the pleadings say.
• Settlement and litigation posture turn on jurisdiction. A successful remand sends the case back to district court, resetting venue dynamics, applicable procedures, and potentially the leverage between the parties.

What to Watch

The Texas Business Court continues to develop its jurisdictional standards case by case. Parties evaluating removal or defending against it should monitor how courts apply the C Ten 31 framework as the Business Court's docket matures. For now, the practical message is straightforward: if you remove a case, be ready to prove the numbers hold up.

For questions about Texas Business Court jurisdiction, removal strategy, or business litigation, contact Hicks Johnson PLLC.