Opinion ID: 2810564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Texas Citizen’s Participation Act

Text: The TCPA provides an expedited means for dismissing lawsuits that involve the exercise of certain constitutional rights, including free speech. Pickens v. Cordia¸433 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001-011). In determining whether a legal action should be dismissed, “the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.006(a). To prevail on a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, the movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the action is “based on, relates to, or is in response to, the party's exercise of the right of free speech; the right to petition; or the right of association.” Id. § 27.005(b)(1)-(3). Other procedures then apply 3 The plaintiffs do allege that DPS failed to send them proficiency samples (in order to maintain their technical supervisor certification), but they do not allege that this was at the direction of Palmer. 33 Case: 13-20569 Document: 00513087139 Page: 34 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 No. 13-20569 c/w 13-20751 if the movant shows that the action is based on, as is relevant here, the exercise of free speech rights. We have not specifically held that the TCPA applies in federal court; at most we have assumed without deciding its applicability. See, e.g., NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze & Bagby, P.L.L.C., 745 F.3d 742, 753 (5th Cir. 2014). 4 Because we determine that the TCPA by its own terms has not been shown to apply, we again pretermit the fundamental issue of its applicability in federal court. Palmer, as the party moving to dismiss, bears the initial burden. The plaintiffs argue that Palmer did not meet that burden as her motion “did not offer any evidence showing that she engaged in activity protected by the TCPA.” Instead, “her motion relied exclusively on the allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint.” The allegations are that Palmer recommended to the Commissioners Court that it award the Contract to DPS rather than Lone Star, she stated at a meeting with representatives of the Commissioners Court that the plaintiffs could not be trusted, and she had private conversations with representatives of the Commissioners Court regarding the plaintiffs. Palmer does not admit to any of this speech, though she also does not deny it. Several recent Texas appellate court cases, none from the state’s highest court, conclude the TCPA does not apply if the defendant denies making the communication at issue. For example, “a defendant who denies making any communication may not obtain dismissal by also simultaneously claiming that he was exercising his right of free speech by making a communication.” Rauhauser v. McGibney, No. 02-14-00215-CV, 2014 WL 6996819 at  (Tex. 4 After oral argument in this matter, the D.C. Circuit declined to apply an Anti-SLAPP statute’s motion-to-dismiss provision on the ground that it conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 56. See Abbas v. Foreign Policy Grp., LLC, 783 F.3d 1328, 1337 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Other circuits have applied state Anti-SLAPP statutes’ pretrial dismissal provisions. See, e.g., Godin v. Schencks, 629 F.3d 79, 81, 92 (1st Cir. 2010); United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d 963, 973 (9th Cir. 1999). 34 Case: 13-20569 Document: 00513087139 Page: 35 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 No. 13-20569 c/w 13-20751 App.—Fort Worth Dec. 11, 2014, no pet.) (citation omitted). In another opinion, a different state appellate court held that because the defendant “has denied sending the email, we conclude [the TCPA] does not apply to this cause of action.” Pickens, 433 S.W.3d at 188. The TCPA was similarly held to be inapplicable in another case when the defendant “claim[ed] that she did not publish any of the defamatory posts[.]” Am. Heritage Capital, LP v. Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d 865, 882 n.5 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 1, 2014, no pet.) Though these decisions are not from the state’s highest court, we conclude they are persuasive. The Pickens opinion explains that the motion to dismiss process under the TCPA “is premised on the notion that one purpose of [the TCPA] is to ‘encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to speak freely.’” Pickens, 433 S.W.3d at 188 (quoting TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.002). Accordingly, “[g]iven that [the defendant] has denied sending the email, we conclude [the TCPA] does not apply to this cause of action.” Id. The only evidence Palmer offers to show the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is based on TCPA-protected activity is allegations from the plaintiffs’ own complaint that Palmer engaged in speech. Palmer does not admit making the relevant statements. Palmer has not cited any Texas case that specifically holds that a plaintiff’s own allegations will by themselves satisfy a defendant’s burden under the TCPA. We will not create such law. 5 Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit pursuant to the TCPA. The district court later awarded attorneys’ fees, as the TCPA says it must do: “If the court orders dismissal . . . the court shall award 5 Palmer cites two Texas cases, but in neither did the court hold that allegations in a complaint are sufficient to satisfy a TCPA movant’s burden to show that the plaintiff’s suit is based on free speech. See James v. Calkins, 446 S.W.3d 135, 147-48 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 21, 2014, pet. filed); Schimmel v. McGregor, 438 S.W.3d 847, 859 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). 35 Case: 13-20569 Document: 00513087139 Page: 36 Date Filed: 06/22/2015 No. 13-20569 c/w 13-20751 to the moving party . . . court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred in defending against the legal action as justice and equity may require.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. ANN. CODE § 27.009(a)(1). Because the district court erred in granting Palmer’s motion to dismiss under the TCPA, attorneys’ fees under that act were not available to Palmer. The district court’s order granting attorneys’ fees must be reversed.