Marialyn Barnard
How Judge Barnard decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On the Business Court's jurisdictional commencement-date question, she treats a lawsuit as a single, unified action dated from its original filing -- adding a new defendant or new corporate claims after September 1, 2024 does not create a separately 'commenced' action, so a case that started in probate or district court before the Business Court existed cannot be brought within its reach later by amendment.
“the entire action commenced prior to September 1, 2024; it therefore remanded the case to the probate court.”
On a Rule 91a challenge to a knowing-participation claim, she will impute an agent's knowledge to the corporate defendant where the pleadings allege the agent acted on the company's behalf, rather than requiring the plaintiff to plead the corporation's own independent knowledge.
“Defendant may be charged with the knowledge its agents acquired while conducting Defendant's business. Plaintiffs, therefore, adequately pled the knowledge element of their knowing-participation claim.”
Procedural preferences
On jurisdictional pleas challenging the amount in controversy, she will not look behind a plaintiff's pleaded damages absent proof of fraud or a sham -- and she treats a plaintiff's decision to nonsuit a district-court case after discovery and refile in the Business Court, alleging a higher damages figure, as ordinary litigation strategy rather than evidence of manufactured jurisdiction.
“merely filing in district court and then engaging in discovery to later determine one should nonsuit and refile in this court in and of itself is not evidence of fraud or a sham.”
She keeps the jurisdictional inquiry strictly separate from the merits: an argument that a contractual damages cap defeats a claim is a merits defense, not a basis to defeat jurisdiction at the pleading stage.
“that argument concerns the enforceability and scope of the Parties' contractual agreements rather than whether Pradera SFR has pled damages sufficient to invoke this court's jurisdiction.”
Cautions
A claim arising out of trust administration under Title 9 of the Property Code is jurisdictionally off-limits to the Business Court regardless of how it is packaged alongside business-entity claims, unless every party affirmatively agrees to supplemental jurisdiction -- she will remand the whole case, business claims included, if the parties do not agree.
“Unless the claim falls within the business court's supplemental jurisdiction, the business court does not have jurisdiction of ... (E) Chapter 53 and Title 9, Property Code”
Removing your own previously filed suit does not insulate it from a jurisdictional challenge by the opposing side -- she will grant an opponent's plea to the jurisdiction and motion for remand even where the plaintiff was the one who chose to bring the case to the Business Court, if the underlying action predates the court's September 1, 2024 jurisdictional cutoff.
“because this case commenced prior to September 1, 2024, Chapter 25A and its removal procedure do not apply to it, and this court has no authority to remove this case from the district court to this court.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Accordingly, because this case commenced prior to September 1, 2024, Chapter 25A and its removal procedure do not apply to it, and this court has no authority to remove this case from the district court to this court. ... In accordance with this opinion, the court grants Defendant's Plea to the Jurisdiction and Motion for Remand and orders the case remanded to the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.”
“Accordingly, based on the pleadings before the court, the court denies Defendant's plea to the jurisdiction.”
“Based on the foregoing, the court remands this case to the Bexar County Probate Court No. 1. IT IS SO ORDERED.”
“After consideration, the court sustains Plaintiff's objection and orders the case remanded to the statutory probate court. ... Based on the foregoing, the court remands this case to Bexar County Probate Court No. 1.”
In post-bench-trial Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law following a five-day trial from January 12 through 16, 2026, Barnard decided how to divide settlement proceeds and litigation-expense reimbursement from an earlier trade-secret suit between affiliated oil-and-gas companies. She found that the parties co-owned the trade secrets and ordered the settlement funds split equally, with the defendant reimbursing half of the plaintiff's pre-2019 litigation costs. This is a signed, substantive bench-trial opinion rather than a party-motion ruling.
“Accordingly, based on the pleadings before the court, the court denies Defendant's plea.”
“Defendants' 91a Motion to Dismiss this cause of action based on no basis in law or fact is therefore DENIED. It is so Ordered that Defendants' 91a Motion to Dismiss is Denied.”
Put Judge Barnard's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Barnard actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Barnard's own signed orders and cites them.