Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC
Opinion
ACCEPTED William J. Boyce 15-25-00003-CV 1844 Harvard Street bboyce@adjtlaw.com (713) 589-3573 Board Certified Civil Appellate Law EADJ ALEXANDER DUBOSE JEFFERSON FIFTEENTH COURT OF 77008-4342 Houston, Texas APPEALS www.adjtlaw.com AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/28/2025 9:52 AM Appellate Counsel CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK April 28, 2025 FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM Mr. Chris Prine CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk, Fifteenth Court of Appeals Clerk P.O. Box 12852 Austin, Texas 78711
Re: Lone Star NGL Product Services, LLC v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC et al., No. 15-25-00003-CV, in the Fifteenth Court of Appeals
Dear Mr. Prine:
We write to provide a brief response to questions raised by the Court during oral argument held on April 15, 2025, in the above-referenced case. Please distribute this letter to Chief Justice Brister, Justice Farris, and Justice Field.
I. The rules of statutory interpretation apply to H.B. 19.
At oral argument, the Court asked whether Section 8’s timing provision should be interpreted differently than other statutory timing provisions because H.B. 19 created the Texas Business Court. The answer to the question is “No.” Such an approach would depart from settled principles of statutory construction and erroneously engraft different interpretative standards depending on the underlying substance of the legislation itself. See Quantum Chem. Corp. v. Toennies, 47 S.W.3d 473, 479 (Tex. 2001) (“A basic rule of statutory construction is that we enforce the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute.”).
This Court already has interpreted Section 8 and found it to be clear and unambiguous. In re ETC Field Services, LLC, 707 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. App.– Austin [15th Dist.] 2025, orig. proceeding) (noting that Section 8’s language “makes plain” the distinction between “initial filings” and “removal” and that the Court of Appeals “cannot re-write [Section 8] to make its boundaries more distinct”) (emphasis added).
Given that the statute is unambiguous and the Texas Supreme Court has made clear that courts are to presume statutory provisions are not jurisdictional (Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chicas, 593 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex. 2019)), it would be erroneous to apply different interpretive principles to H.B. 19.
AUS T I N D A L LAS HO US T O N SA N A NT O N IO
Page 2
II. If the Business Court has subject matter jurisdiction, it must be exercised.
The Court asked whether the Business Court should exercise discretion to decline to adjudicate the parties’ dispute, even if it has subject matter jurisdiction. No such discretion exists.
Texas law is clear that if a Court has subject matter jurisdiction, then it has no discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction except in limited instances involving the forum non conveniens doctrine. Dow Chem. Co. v. Castro Alfaro, 786 S.W.2d 674, 678 (Tex. 1990) (citing Allen v. Bass, 47 S.W.2d 426, 427 (Tex. App.— El Paso 1932, writ ref’d.) for the proposition that, in the absence of forum non conveniens, trial courts have no discretion and it is “obligatory on the district courts to accept jurisdiction and try these cases”).
III. Effective dates in other statutes can be abrogated by parties’ agreements.
The Court asked Appellees’ counsel about application of the effective date of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”) and a hypothetical concerning whether parties could have agreed to application of that statute in cases already pending when it was enacted. The answer that question is: “Yes.”
In disputes relating to “qualified transactions,” Texas recognizes the right of contracting parties to choose the law applicable to their dispute. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 271.005–.007. Thus, if parties to a qualified transaction decide to apply the TCPA to their dispute, even though their suit was pending when the TCPA was enacted, Texas law recognizes their ability to do so. Id.; see also Sonat Expl. Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 228, 235 (Tex. 2008).1 There is no difference, here, to the parties’ agreement to apply Chapter 25A of the Texas Government Code.
1 In Sonat Exploration, the Texas Supreme Court recognized:
Protection of the justified expectations of the parties is the basic policy underlying the field of contracts. Enforcing contracts according to their own terms satisfies the relevant policies of the forum, enhances certainty, predictability, and uniformity of result, and facilitates commerce and relations with other states and nations. Accordingly, the parties’ expectations as stated in their contract should not be frustrated by applying a state law that would invalidate the contract, at least not unless those expectations are substantially outweighed by the interests of the state with the invalidating rule.
271 S.W.3d at 235 (footnotes and quotations omitted).
Page 3
Further, the parties’ agreement does nothing to undermine the Court’s decision in In re ETC Field Services. The fact that the Court determined Section 8 is mandatory does not therefore mean that Section 8 affects the Texas Business Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. City of DeSoto v. White, 288 S.W.3d 389, 395 (Tex. 2009) (“[J]ust because a statutory requirement is mandatory does not mean that compliance with it is jurisdictional.”).
For these reasons, as well as the reasons articulated in the parties’ briefs and at oral argument, that parties ask this Court to reverse the Trial Court’s remand order and permit this case to proceed in Business Court.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William J. Boyce William J. Boyce State Bar No. 02760100 bboyce@adjtlaw.com ALEXANDER DUBOSE & JEFFERSON LLP 1844 Harvard Street Houston, Texas 77008-4342 Telephone: (713) 523-2358 Facsimile: (713) 522-4553
Andrew P. Price State Bar No. 24002791 andrew.price@nortonrosefulbright.com Rafe A. Schaefer State Bar No. 24077700 rafe.schaefer@nortonrosefulbright.com Timothy Shinn State Bar No. 24125409 timothy.shinn@nortonrosefulbright.com NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP Fulbright Tower 1550 Lamar, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77010-3095 Telephone: (713) 651-5151 Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
ATTORNEYS FOR LONE STAR NGL PRODUCT SERVICES, LLC
Page 4
Fields Alexander State Bar No. 00783528 falexander@beckredden.com Thomas E. Ganucheau State Bar No. 00784104 tganucheau@beckredden.com Mary Kate Raffetto State Bar No. 24098296 mkraffetto@beckredden.com Parth S. Gejji State Bar No. 24087575 pgejji@beckredden.com Garrett S. Brawley State Bar No. 24095812 gbrawley@beckredden.com Cassie Maneen State Bar No. 24120989 cmaneen@beckredden.com BECK REDDEN LLP 1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Houston, Texas 77010-2010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700
ATTORNEYS FOR EAGLECLAW MIDSTREAM VENTURES LLC AND CR PERMIAN PROCESSING, LLC
cc: All counsel of record via e-filing
Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The 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.
Latonya McPherson on behalf of William Boyce Bar No. 2760100 lmcpherson@adjtlaw.com Envelope ID: 100145433 Filing Code Description: Letter Filing Description: Letter Brief Status as of 4/28/2025 10:00 AM CST
Associated Case Party: Lone Star NGL Product Services, LLC
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Cindy Hickman cindy.hickman@nortonrosefulbright.com 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM SENT
Angelina Martinez angelina.martinez@nortonrosefulbright.com 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM SENT
Rafe Schaefer 24077700 rafe.schaefer@nortonrosefulbright.com 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM SENT
Abraham Chang 24102827 abraham.chang@nortonrosefulbright.com 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM SENT
William Boyce 2760100 bboyce@adjtlaw.com 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM SENT
Timothy Shinn 24125409 Timothy.shinn@nortonrosefulbright.com 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM SENT
Andrew Price andrew.price@nortonrosefulbright.com 4/28/2025 9:52:18 AM SENT
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC (Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.