Sofia Adrogué
How Judge Adrogué rules, drawn from 9 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Adrogué
Sofia Adrogué joined the Texas Business Court’s Eleventh Division in September 2024 after appointment by Governor Greg Abbott. Before joining the bench, she practiced commercial litigation in Houston and clerked for Fifth Circuit Judge Jerre S. Williams. She earned degrees from Rice University and the University of Houston Law Center.
Judge Adrogué's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Adrogué, 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.
How Judge Adrogué decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures, LLC, Judge Adrogue found that the Business Court lacked jurisdiction over a suit commenced before September 1, 2024, despite the parties’ agreement to litigate there.
“The Court finds that Section 8 of H.B. 19 unambiguously operates as a jurisdictional provision when applied to Texas Government Code Section 25A.004 (entitled ‘Jurisdiction and Powers’).”
In Plains Pipeline v. Arrowhead Gulf Coast Holdings, Adrogué rejected an interpretation of a purchase agreement's reimbursement obligation that would have made its exclusive-remedy and survival provisions superfluous.
“Plaintiffs' interpretation-alleging the absence of language in the Purchase Agreement limiting the temporal scope of the assumption obligations-would render the exclusive remedy and the survival provisions of Article X superfluous.”
In City Choice Group, LLC v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Company, LLC, Judge Adrogue applied substantial compliance to a contractual notice condition where the deviation caused no prejudice and did not impair the notice’s purpose.
“a party's minor deviations from a contractual notice condition that do not severely impair the purpose underlying that condition and cause no prejudice do not and should not deprive that party of the benefit of its bargain.”
In a dispute over LLC ownership interests, she dismissed a conversion claim concerning uncertificated units because the pleaded transfer did not involve a physical document embodying those interests.
“Count Four, therefore, has no basis in law and must be dismissed.”
Procedural preferences
In Bestway Oilfield, Inc. v. Cox, Judge Adrogue stayed her remand order while related appellate proceedings addressed the same jurisdictional question.
“the Court GRANTS Bestway's request and STAYS the remand order contained herein, and all proceedings under this cause number, pending the resolution of the traditional appeal and mandamus arising out of Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc.”
In Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures, LLC, Judge Adrogue authorized a permissive interlocutory appeal on the controlling question of the Business Court’s jurisdiction.
“the Court grants the request because the legal issue considered by this Court...is a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.”
Cautions
In CreateAI Holdings, Inc. v. Bot Auto TX Inc., Judge Adrogue dismissed two declaratory counterclaims under Rule 91a because they sought no affirmative relief beyond denial of the opposing claim.
“Since counts 6.g and 6.h do not state a claim for affirmative relief, they run afoul of the mirror-image rule.”
In City Choice Group v. TMC Grand Blvd Land Company, Adrogué denied TMC’s motion for immediate release of escrowed funds. She held that TMC had not followed the statutory procedure for a writ of attachment and therefore could not obtain a prejudgment seizure of the title company’s debt.
“Because TMC has failed to comply with the statutory requirements for a writ of attachment, it is not entitled to pre-judgment seizure of City Select Title's debt.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The Parties have failed to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. ... Therefore, subject to the Court's stay issued in Paragraph 30 below, it is ORDERED that the Business Court Clerk shall remand this cause to the 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.”
“In addition, the Court grants the Parties' request for a permissive interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(d). The Court grants the request because the legal issue considered by this Court—whether ‘a civil action that was commenced before September 1, 2024 [may] be removed to Business Court where the parties entered into a subsequent agreement expressly consenting to the jurisdiction of the Business Court’—is a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion.”
“Further, to the extent that the Court has the authority to do so, the Court STAYS the remand order contained herein pending the resolution of the Parties' permissive interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 51.014(e).”
“Bestway has failed to establish that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. ... Therefore, subject to the Court's stay issued in Paragraph 19 below, it is ORDERED that the Business Court Clerk shall remand this cause to the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.”
“Further, to the extent that the Court has the authority to do so, the Court GRANTS Bestway's request and STAYS the remand order contained herein, and all proceedings under this cause number, pending the resolution of the traditional appeal and mandamus arising out of Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., No. 24-BC01B-0007, 2024 Tex. Bus. 2 (Tex. Bus. Ct. Oct. 31, 2024).”
“Because this lawsuit was commenced before September 1, 2024, the Court holds that ... Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED and it is ORDERED that this cause be remanded to the district court.”
“On this basis, the Court signed its March 17, 2025 Order granting Plaintiff's Motion as to Defendant's counterclaim counts 6.g and 6.h.”
“The Court issued an order on June 6, 2025, granting the First Motion.”
“Because this process has not even begun, the Court must deny the Second Motion.”
“the Court finds that Defendants' Motion should be GRANTED and Plaintiffs' Motion should be DENIED.”
“It is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion is DENIED.”
“the Motions should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Remand.”
Draft for Judge Adrogué with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Adrogué, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Adrogué's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace