In a matter of first impression, the First Division of the Texas Business Court recently addressed its authority to consider a Rule 202 petition for pre-suit discovery. Judge Whitehill’s opinion, which held jurisdiction over the Rule 202 petition was proper in the Business Court, is another extension of the Court’s jurisdictional jurisprudence that continues to shape the scope of the Court’s reach.
In In re Radical Hoops, Ltd. And Radical Mavericks II, LLC, 2026 Tex. Bus. 55 Cause No. 26-BC01B-0067, the Business Court considered the Petitioners’ Emergency Motion to Remand a Rule 202 petition that Petitioners had previously filed in district court before the Respondent removed the proceeding to the Business Court.
Texas Government Code § 25A permits a party to remove to Business Court an “action” within the Court’s jurisdiction that was first filed in district court. In the early days of the Court, there was an influx of removal cases that required the Business Court to quickly establish the metes and bounds of its jurisdiction, including determining the enabling statute’s meaning of the word “action.”
The Petitioners argued removal was improper here because, under Government Code § 25A.006(d)’s removal provision, an “action” means a lawsuit, which a Rule 202 proceeding is not. In support of their position, the Petitioners relied on earlier Business Court cases that interpreted Chapter 25A, including Yadav v. Agrawal, 2025 Tex. Bus. 7, 708 S.W.3d 246 (3d Div.); Osmose Util. Servs., Inc. v. Navarro Cnty. Elec. Coop., 2025 Tex. Bus. 3, 707 S.W.3d 117 (1st Div.); and Tema Oil & Gas Co., 2024 Tex. Bus. 3, 705 S.W.3d 226 (8th Div.).
But the Business Court rejected that argument and held that an “action” is broader than just a lawsuit and includes legal proceedings in which a party seeks to enforce a claimed right—such as a Rule 202 petition.
In its analysis, the Court addressed two questions presented by Government Code § 25A.006(d): First, whether a Rule 202 proceeding is an “action” under the statute, and, if yes, whether the action comes within the Business Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Answering yes to the first question, the Business Court reasoned that none of its prior decisions regarding removal of pre-September 2024 lawsuits or parts of an entire action illuminated whether Rule 202 pre-suit discovery is within the statutory definition of “action.”
The Business Court then turned to Texas Supreme Court decision Jaster v. Comet II Const., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556, 563-64 (Tex. 2014). In Jaster, the Texas Supreme Court referenced Black’s Law Dictionary and century-old Texas case law to define “action” as generally synonymous with “suit,” which includes a judicial proceeding where a party asserts a claim to relief. Based on the broad definition in Jaster, the Business Court held that the Petitioners’ Rule 202 proceeding is an “action” because the Petitioners sought to enforce a claimed right to conduct pre-suit discovery.
On the second question, the Business Court held that the Rule 202 action was within the Court’s jurisdiction because Respondent’s notice of removal pleaded the existence of two qualified transactions that satisfied the statutory jurisdictional requirements and alleged that more than US$5 million was in controversy. The Court then pointed to Government Code § 25A.004(a)(2)’s text which states that the Business Court may “grant any relief that may be granted by a district court.” Accordingly, the Court determined that because a district court can grant the relief sought by a Rule 202 petition so too can the Business Court.
The Business Court’s ruling in In re Radical Hoops, Ltd. And Radical Mavericks II, LLC makes clear that the Court’s doors are not only open to litigants within its jurisdiction but also to potential litigants that otherwise meet the statutory jurisdictional requirements to conduct pre-suit discovery to preserve testimony in an anticipated lawsuit or investigate the merits of potential claims.
