*1
FILED IN
BUSINESS COURT OF TEXAS
BEVERLY CRUMLEY, CLERK
ENTERED
12/5/2025
The Business Court of Texas, First Division
SUN METALS GROUP, LLC, §
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant , §
§
v. §
§ Cause No. 25-BC01A-0050 SHUANGCHENG YU, §
MENGLING SUN, SUNMETALS §
PRODUCTS OF AMERICA, LLC, §
and SUNMETALS PRODUCTS §
DE MEXICO, S.A. de C.V. , §
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs . §
═══════════════════════════════════════ Memorandum Opinion & Order for Remand ═══════════════════════════════════════ Bеfore the Court is Plaintiff Sun Metals Group, LLC’s Motion to Remand Baselessly and Tardily Removed Action Involving Less than $5million in Pleaded and Disclosed Compensatory Damages and Request for Evidentiary Hearing on Motiоn for Sanctions Under TRCP 355 and Ch. 25A . Plaintiff’s motion challenges this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction on two grounds: (1) Plaintiff’s assertеd damages do not meet this Court’s $5,000,000 *2 jurisdictional threshold, and (2) Defendants’ removal was untimely. Following an oral hearing on December 1, 2025, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand for untimeliness. Section 25A.006(f) of the Texas Government Code allows a
party’s unilateral removal to the Business Court in two circumstances. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE § 25A.006(f)(1)-(2). As is relevant here, Subsection (1) allows a party to remove the action “not later than the 30th day after thе later of: . . . (B) the date the party requesting removal of the action discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, facts establishing the business court’s jurisdiction over the action.” T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE § 25A.006(f)(1); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 355(c)(2)(A). In its mоtion to remand, Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ removal
of this action is untimely because the “lawsuit has bеen pending for ten (10) months” in the district court. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand at ¶ 1. However, the window for removal undеr Section 25A.006(f)(1)(B) is open through the “30th day after . . . the party requesting removal of the action discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, facts establishing the business court’s jurisdiction over the аction.” T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE § 25A.006(f)(1)(B). Defendants contend that the 30-day window for removal opened
on October 27, 2025, when they filed Defendants’ Fourth Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Third Amended Counterclaim , which contained a counterclaim with damages in the amount of $710,000. Defendants’ Fourth Amended Answer at ¶¶ 81-82. As Defendants see it, those damages pushed the amount in сontroversy over this Court’s jurisdictional threshold amount for the first time —and constituted facts establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. [1] Because Defendants filed their Notice of Removal on October 28, 2025, they believe their removal was timely. But having closely examined the pleadings in this action, the Cоurt concludes Defendants’ basis for removal was evident no later than September 8, 2025. On that date, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition
Request for Declaratory Judgment , which raised Plaintiff’s asserted damages *4 and costs to “over $3,343,694.58.” Plaintiff’s Second Amended Petition at ¶ 3.1. Defendants read that pleading as putting Plaintiff’s “identified and ascertainable governance-related claims” at a “total [of] at lеast $4,669,518.37.” Defendants’ Response to Motion at ¶ 15. No finding is made as to whether Defendants’ reading is accurate because it is immaterial to the outcome. Importantly, by the time Plaintiff filed its Second Amendеd
Petition, Defendants had already asserted materially significant damages in their counterclaims. Dеfendants’ Second Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims , filed (before Plaintiff’s Second Amеnded Petition) on August 13, 2025, contained, inter alia, alternative causes of action for breach оf contract with damages in the amount of $499,823.79 and for money had and received with damages in the amount of $712,529.45. Defendants’ Second Amended Answer at ¶¶ 53, 56; see also Defendants’ Original Answer at ¶¶ 44, 47, 49 (identifying same causes of actiоn but not in the alternative). Consequently, even taking the damage calculations limned in
Defendants’ response as accurate, see Defendants’ Response to Motion at ¶ 14, the damages which Defendants contend satisfy this Court’s jurisdictional *5 requirement werе facially pleaded by the combination of Plaintiff’s September 8, 2025 petition with Defendants’ prior August 13, 2025 counter-petition— not, as Defendants argue, upon the combination of Plaintiff’s September 8, 2025 pеtition with Defendants’ later October 27, 2025 counter-petition. Thus, the deadline for removing this action from the district court to the Business Court elapsed on October 8, 2025, 30 days after Plaintiffs’ September 8, 2025 petition was filed. Defendants’ Notice of Removal , filed October 28, 2025, was untimely. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand
is GRANTED, and this matter, including Plaintiff’s pending request for sanctions, is remanded to the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, for further proceedings.
_____ _________________ ANDREA K. BOURESSA Judge of thе Texas Business Court, First Division
SIGNED ON: December 5, 2025.
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
Thе filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 108793607
Filing Code Description: Proposed Order
Filing Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order for Remand
Status as of 12/5/2025 4:49 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status David Ritter dritter@ritterspеncercheng.com 12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM SENT David Ritter dritter@ritterspencercheng.com 12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM SENT David Ritter dritter@ritterspencerсheng.com 12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM SENT Natalie Ortiz admin@ritterspencercheng.com 12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM SENT Skyela Richards srichards@ritterspencеrcheng.com 12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM SENT Tracy Lin tlin@sandorslaw.com 12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM SENT Oscar ReyRodriguez REY@orrattorney.com 12/5/2025 4:42:07 PM SENT
Notes
[1] Plaintiff argues Defеndants’ counterclaims are irrelevant to the Court’s analysis. But the
Business Court has made clear that thе amount in controversy applies to an “action,” not
individual claims.
C Ten 31 LLC v. Tarbox
,