Skip to main content

Cadence McShane Construction Company v. Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek

Tex. Bus. Ct.November 3, 2025No. 25-BC03B-0002

Case Details

Status
Published
Procedural Posture
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

This opinion addresses Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction which challenged the Court's jurisdiction over Plaintiff's third-party claims filed against multiple subcontractors who performed work on a construction project. The Court denied Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, concluding the third-party claims met the definition of an "action arising out of a qualified transaction" under Section 25A.004(d)(1). Further, the Court found the third-party claims were neither "conjectural, hypothetical or remote" and therefore ripe. Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment contending that Plaintiff's tortious interference with contract, defamation, and business disparagement claims are barred by the limitation-of-liability provision in the parties' 2022 agreement. Granting a third-party defendant's special appearance arguing no personal jurisdiction over him because he did not commit any tortious acts while in Texas. Because the respondents did not plead or prove that this defendant has sufficient Texas contacts giving rise to the claims against him to support personal jurisdiction over him for any pled cause of action, the court granted the non-resident's special appearances and dismissed the claims against him without prejudice. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166(g), the Court issues this decision holding that (1) fact issues preclude the Court from determining whether the liquidated-damages clause in the parties' contract is an unenforceable penalty and (2) under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's cost-basis theory is not the correct measure of the plaintiff's actual damages. In this force-majeure dispute arising out of Winter Storm Uri, parties to a contract for the sale of natural gas dispute whether the seller should have (i) purchased gas on the spot market to cover any production shortfall or (ii) bought back its delivery obligation. The Court holds that the parties' contract did not obligate the s

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a dispute between Cadence McShane Construction Company and Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek, along with multiple subcontractors who worked on a construction project. Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek challenged whether the court had the authority to hear certain claims that Cadence McShane filed against the subcontractors. Essentially, they argued the court shouldn't be allowed to decide these particular parts of the case. **What the Court Decided:** The court rejected Ryan BB-Blockhouse Creek's challenge and ruled that it did have jurisdiction (authority) to hear the case. The court found that the claims against the subcontractors qualified as an "action arising out of a qualified transaction" under Texas law. The court also determined that these claims were real and substantial, not just theoretical possibilities. However, the case was ultimately dismissed. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling is significant because it shows how courts handle disputes involving multiple parties in construction projects. When workers are employed by subcontractors on larger projects, understanding which court can hear employment-related disputes affects where they might need to file claims. The decision helps clarify that Texas business courts can handle complex multi-party construction disputes, potentially making it easier for workers to pursue claims when multiple employers or contractors are involved.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.