Court Rulings

Denying the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 91a. The Court first finds that the case falls within the Court's jurisdictional scope and that the plaintiff's non-suit was not filed in time to prevent the court's ruling on the Rule 91a motion. It next finds that the plaintiff's application to wind up a partnership under section 11.314 of the Business Organizations Code provided sufficient factual allegations to support her claims at this early stage of the case. The Court declined to award fees. This opinion addresses the ability of the Court to adjudicate legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising out of an alleged attorney-client relationship involving an attorney, two business associates, and multiple business entities. The Court declines to consider whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the attorney and business entities but does address whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims emanating from the alleged relationship. The Court concludes the legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims are improperly before it and, accordingly, dismisses all claims against the attorney-Defendant without prejudice. Granting Plaintiff's motion to remand for untimeliness because the damages which Defendants contend satisfy this Court's jurisdictional requirement were facially pleaded more than thirty days before Defendants removed the case to Business Court. Remanding Defendants' motion for sanctions to district court. The Court addresses whether the Texas Legislature's amount-in-controversy threshold reduction gives the Texas Business Court jurisdiction to hear a previously remanded action and whether the subsequent removal of the action was proper and timely. The Court examines the statutory construction of House Bill 40 and determines removal was both proper and timely under Texas Government Code 25A.006(f). Granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against defendants' counterclaims for declaratory

In an interlocutory appeal brought by medical staffing companies concerning a physician-plaintiff's claim against them under the Virginia Whistleblower Protection Act, Code § 40.1-27.3, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the denial of their plea in bar to that claim because the alleged retaliatory action taken against the plaintiff -- removing her from the work schedule in March of 2021 -- took place more than one year prior to her filing suit on April 1, 2022. The fact that she only later discovered her injury to be greater than she first realized as a result of a June 2, 2021, termination letter confirming that the termination of her employment was effective as of March 3, 2021, is immaterial to when she first sustained that injury. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

This opinion addresses the ability of the Court to adjudicate legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims arising out of an alleged attorney-client relationship involving an attorney, two business associates, and multiple business entities. The Court declines to consider whether an attorney-client relationship existed between the attorney and business entities but does address whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear claims emanating from the alleged relationship. The Court concludes the legal malpractice and fractured malpractice-based claims are improperly before it and, accordingly, dismisses all claims against the attorney-Defendant without prejudice. Granting Plaintiff's motion to remand for untimeliness because the damages which Defendants contend satisfy this Court's jurisdictional requirement were facially pleaded more than thirty days before Defendants removed the case to Business Court. Remanding Defendants' motion for sanctions to district court. The Court addresses whether the Texas Legislature's amount-in-controversy threshold reduction gives the Texas Business Court jurisdiction to hear a previously remanded action and whether the subsequent removal of the action was proper and timely. The Court examines the statutory construction of House Bill 40 and determines removal was both proper and timely under Texas Government Code 25A.006(f). Granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against defendants' counterclaims for declaratory relief because each requested declaration either duplicates issues already joined by the pleadings or seeks relief beyond this Court's jurisdiction. Granting Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff TMC's Traditional Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Termination against Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant City Choice. Although City Choice's termination notice was clear and unequivocal; its tender of its termination notice was not the exercise or acceptance of an option, and is therefore, not sub

Rule 12(b)(6); at-will employment; wrongful discharge; N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2; sex discrimination.