Brian Stagner
How Judge Stagner rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Stagner
Brian Stagner has served as a judge of the Texas Business Court’s Eighth Division in Fort Worth since September 2024. Governor Greg Abbott reappointed him to a new two-year term beginning September 1, 2026. Before joining the court, he practiced business litigation at Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP in Fort Worth.
Judge Stagner's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Stagner, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Judge-Specific Requirements for Judge Stagner ↗
- Initial Case Status Report ↗
- Proposed Agreed Protective Order ↗
- Proposed Joint Pretrial Order ↗
- Proposed Scheduling Order ↗
Key rules
Filing
Provide courtesy copies of motions, responses, or replies exceeding 25 pages, including appendices.
“Courtesy copies are required for motions, responses, or replies that exceed 25 pages (inclusive of appendices).”
Motions
A motion to compel must attach the requests and objections or responses, and counsel must confer on each disputed item first.
“The judge will not consider a motion to compel unless the relevant requests and objections/responses are attached. Before filing such motion, parties are required to confer on each disputed request or objection.”
Conferences
File a joint proposed scheduling order and initial case status report within 30 days of a defendant’s appearance or of removal or transfer.
“Parties must confer on and jointly file a proposed scheduling order and an initial case status report (i) within 30 days of any defendant’s appearance in the case, or (ii) if the action was removed or transferred to the Business Court, within 30 days from the filing of the notice of removal or order of transfer.”
How Judge Stagner decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich, Stagner held that the company agreement gave a director no veto over transfers. Its majority-approval rule and express right-of-first-offer safeguard did not imply an additional veto.
“If the parties had intended to give the Class B Director a veto over transfers, they could have said so in Section 9.2. Instead, they paired a majority-approval rule with an economic backstop in the ROFO. The Court, absent express language in the Company Agreement, will not convert that backstop into a veto.”
In The Mark at Weatherford Owner v. German, Stagner granted the plaintiff summary judgment after holding that the contractual closing fees were payable when legally due even though the buyer had not paid them. The unpaid fees triggered the seller’s contractual repurchase right.
“A debt may be both payable and unpaid at the same time. That is, in fact, the ordinary premise of a breach-of-contract action.”
In Exeter Denton Land v. Ariat International, Stagner rejected a categorical reading of the lease’s as-is clause because its express exception preserved the landlord’s other contractual promises. He left the tenant’s contract counterclaim pending.
“preserves every representation, covenant, and warranty that Exeter made elsewhere”
Procedural preferences
In Aspire Commercial v. Stephenson, Stagner found that attorney argument disputing the plaintiff's damages theory did not satisfy the defendant's evidentiary burden on the jurisdictional challenge.
“Stephenson relies primarily on attorney argument challenging the plausibility of Plaintiff's allegations. But attorney argument is not evidence, and mere disagreement with a plaintiff's damages theory does not satisfy the defendant's burden under the governing framework.”
In a fee-advancement dispute in Energy Founders Fund v. Daskevich, Stagner confined his analysis to the company agreement and petition, declining to consider extrinsic correspondence at that stage.
“the Court concludes that it should confine its analysis to the eight corners of the company agreement and the petition. This approach best preserves the summary nature of advancement proceedings, promotes predictability, and avoids premature entanglement with the merits.”
Cautions
In Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Erick Brenner, Judge Stagner declined to infer trade-secret misappropriation solely from Brenner’s later employment with a competitor, finding the inference unsupported and potentially damaging to reputation.
“the Court declines to infer misappropriation solely from Brenner's subsequent employment with a competitor. This sort of supposition is how reputations are ruined in an industry.”
In Camino Real Developers, LLC v. RivenRock, LLC, he rejected RivenRock’s attempt to claim benefits under the governing agreement while disclaiming its capital-call obligations.
“RivenRock's theory would require the Court to view a membership interest as a cafeteria plan from which a transferee may pick and choose. Under this approach, a party could claim a right to 50% of the profits (created by the Agreement) while rejecting the duty to fund capital calls (also created by the Agreement). Texas law does not permit that sort of selective acceptance.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that SSER's Motion to Remand is DENIED.”
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Philip Daskevich's motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED and EFF's cross-motion is GRANTED.”
“Camino Real Developers, LLC's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Court enters the declarations set forth above.”
“Consistent with this opinion, the Court DENIES Stephenson's Motion to Remand.”
“Plaintiff's Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Energy Founders Fund, LP and the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by John Donovan, Jr. are GRANTED.”
“the Daskeviches' Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment are DENIED.”
“The motion for advancement is therefore DENIED.”
“the Court concludes that Galderma has met its burden to obtain temporary injunctive relief to the extent set forth in this Order.”
“Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendants' Counterclaim for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED.”
“The veil-piercing theory against all Byrnes Defendants and the breach-of-contract claim against Mr. Byrnes are dismissed with prejudice.”
“the Court denies the Motion as to the fraud claim against Mr. Byrnes.”
“Because the claims, issues, and relief sought in the two cases are distinct, and the facts underlying this action do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the Parker County litigation, Martens's claim is not compulsory. Therefore, the Plea to the Jurisdiction and the related Motion to Dismiss are denied.”
“Abatement is therefore unwarranted.”
“the Court now concludes that Plaintiffs, in their amended petition, have pleaded facts sufficient to satisfy the $5 million threshold requirement. Defendants' Plea is therefore denied.”
Draft for Judge Stagner with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Stagner, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Stagner's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace