Introduction
The Texas Business Court — established to provide specialized adjudication of complex commercial disputes — has quickly become a significant forum for business litigation in the state. But what happens when a plaintiff, after removal to the Business Court, decides they would rather be somewhere else? Can strategic amendments to a petition strip the Business Court of jurisdiction and send a case back to the original state district court?
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals addressed this procedural question on Feb. 12, 2026, in In re ColossusBets Limited, providing guidance on the limits of jurisdictional maneuvering and reinforcing that Texas courts will not reward “artful pleading.”
The Unusual Facts Behind the Case
This case arose from a creative — and contested — lottery scheme. Plaintiff Jerry Reed won $7.5 million in a Lotto Texas drawing. However, Reed alleged that several affiliated entities and individuals had “rigged” a drawing just 26 days earlier by purchasing nearly all 25.8 million possible number combinations. According to Reed, this scheme allowed the defendants to collect $95 million while substantially reducing subsequent jackpots — including the one Reed won.
Reed filed a lawsuit, asserting claims for “money had and received,” violations of the State Lottery Act, and various derivative theories of joint and several liability. Two defendants removed the case to the Texas Business Court, invoking the court’s statutory jurisdiction over actions “regarding the governance, governing documents, or internal affairs of an organization.”
The Procedural Battle Over Jurisdiction
The Business Court initially denied Reed’s motion to remand the case to Travis County district court, citing allegations that the prize-claiming entity was created for unlawful purposes and that defendants made misrepresentations about when they formed the entity.
Reed responded by amending his petition twice over the following two months. In his final amended petition, he “expressly disclaim[ed] any allegation, legal theory, or request for relief” that would fall within the Business Court’s jurisdiction. Minutes later, he filed a renewed motion to remand.
The defendants argued that the Business Court should retain the case under alternative jurisdictional grounds — including jurisdiction over trade regulation laws, qualified transactions, or supplemental jurisdiction. After detailed analysis, the Business Court rejected these arguments and remanded the case.
The defendants then sought mandamus relief, arguing that once removal was properly invoked, the plaintiff could not defeat Business Court jurisdiction through pleading amendments.
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals’ Analysis
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of orders of the Texas Business Courts. The legislature’s purpose in creating this appellate court was to ensure greater consistency and expertise in the handling of civil cases of statewide significance. This would ensure uniform, clear, and sophisticated resolution of business disputes and the further development of a specialized body of case law concerning corporate governance, high value commercial transactions, securities matters, and complex multi‑jurisdictional commercial disputes.
Texas Business Court Can Reconsider Remand Orders
The Fifteenth Court of Appeals first addressed whether the Business Court had authority to reconsider its prior order denying remand. The answer: yes.
The court emphasized that a trial court’s plenary jurisdiction includes “not only the authority but the responsibility to review any pre-trial order upon proper motion.” (emphasis in original). Texas’s pleading rules generally allow parties to amend their pleadings freely until seven days before trial, and these rules are incorporated into Business Court procedure.
The defendants pointed to Rule 355(f), which authorizes motions to remand “based on improper removal,” arguing this language implicitly bars remand in all other circumstances. The court rejected this interpretation, noting that “implying a negative rule from a positive statement is risky.” Reading the rules in context, the court found no basis to conclude that the Business Court must retain jurisdiction over cases that were properly removed but no longer present claims within its statutory authority.
Artful Pleading Will Not Be Rewarded
While the court permitted reconsideration of remand orders, it made clear that plaintiffs cannot freely manipulate jurisdiction through strategic pleading.
The court acknowledged legitimate concerns about “forum-shopping pleading amendments” that would allow plaintiffs “to game themselves out of the Business Court.” To address this risk, the court held that Reed’s express disclaimer of Business Court claims constituted an implied waiver that could not later be revoked.
Citing Texas Supreme Court precedent, the court explained that “litigation conduct can create an implied waiver that cannot be revoked” when a party’s conduct “clearly demonstrates the party’s intent to relinquish, abandon, or waive the right at issue.” By expressly disavowing claims within the Business Court’s jurisdiction, Reed waived those claims permanently.
The court underscored that “state law does not reward artful pleading,” and noted that pleadings are construed by their substance, not their form. This approach is intended to ensure that jurisdictional lines remain meaningful and cannot be circumvented through creative drafting.
Key Takeaways for Businesses and Practitioners
1. Business Court jurisdiction is not a “one-way door.” Parties should understand that removal to the Business Court does not permanently lock in that forum. If parties amend or narrow their claims, remand remains possible.
2. Express disclaimers have real consequences. Plaintiffs who disclaim Business Court claims to secure remand will be bound by that waiver. Attempting to reassert those claims later — or to re-remove based on new allegations — may be precluded.
3. Defendants should consider documenting jurisdictional conduct. When opposing remand, defendants may wish to create a clear record of the plaintiff’s representations about claims and theories. These representations may form the basis of waiver arguments if the plaintiff later attempts to reverse course.
4. Bright-line rules are the goal. The court emphasized that the legislature’s mandate for “prompt, efficient, and final determination of business court jurisdiction” requires clear standards. Thus, ambiguous or equivocal pleading strategies may not succeed.
Conclusion
In re ColossusBets Limited provides important guidance on the procedural boundaries of Texas Business Court jurisdiction. While the court confirmed that plaintiffs retain the ability to amend pleadings and seek remand, it also made clear that such choices may carry binding consequences. Parties considering removal to — or escape from — the Business Court should consider proceeding with careful attention to the jurisdictional implications of their pleading decisions.
