Court Opinion

ID: 9364824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-20 10:10:10.629725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:40.587741
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-20-00042-CV

KEARY BARNES AND BVW INTERESTS, LLC,
                                                          Appellants
v.

SUPREME SERVICE & SUPPLY CO., INC.,
                                                          Appellee

                          From the 85th District Court
                              Brazos County, Texas
                        Trial Court No. 18-002495-CV-85

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Supreme Service & Supply Company, Inc. (Supreme) sued Keary Barnes (Barnes)

and BVW Interests, LLC (BVW), among others. Barnes and BVW filed a motion to

dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The trial court denied

the motion to dismiss, and this interlocutory appeal ensued. We will affirm.
                             Factual and Procedural Background

       Supreme originally sued Combatt Oilfield Solutions, LLC (Combatt) and Intense

Wireline Solutions, LLC (Intense Wireline), alleging as follows in its original petition:

Supreme entered into an agreement with Combatt to provide materials, equipment,

labor, and services to Combatt in connection with maintaining, repairing, and operating

oil and gas wells. Combatt failed to pay for the goods and services that Supreme

provided. Supreme contacted Combatt demanding payment and informed Combatt that

if it did not pay, Supreme would be forced to file liens on the oil and gas wells and leases

on which Supreme had worked. Combatt responded that it was selling its assets to

Intense Wireline and that it would use the proceeds from the sale to pay Supreme.

Relying on Combatt’s representations, Supreme forewent the filing of liens at that time.

Subsequently, Combatt sold its assets to Intense Wireline but did not use the sale

proceeds to pay Supreme. When Supreme thereafter began sending lien notice letters to

the owners of the oil and gas wells and leases on which Supreme had worked, Supreme

learned that it no longer had any lien rights because the owners had already paid

Combatt in full for Supreme’s work. Supreme therefore sued Combatt on a sworn

account, for breach of contract, and alternatively, for quantum meruit. Supreme further

asserted causes of action against Combatt for fraud and fraudulent transfer. Supreme

sued Intense Wireline for fraudulent transfer.

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                  Page 2
       Combatt failed to answer Supreme’s lawsuit, and Supreme was granted a default

judgment against Combatt. Supreme’s claims against Combatt, on which the default

judgment was granted, were then severed from the underlying cause.

       After the severance, Supreme amended its petition and added Barnes and BVW as

defendants, as well as CF Equipment Financing, LLC (CF Equipment), Catalyst Finance,

L.P., Catalyst Financial Company, and B&V Partners, LLC, individually and doing

business as Complete Oilfield Solutions (B&V Partners). Supreme alleged that these

added defendants “are affiliates and insiders of each other and of Combatt” and that after

Combatt’s sale of its assets to Intense Wireline, these defendants “used their ownership

and control of Combatt to pay themselves instead of Combatt’s legitimate non-insider

creditor, Supreme.” More specifically, Supreme alleged: Combatt has been insolvent

since its inception, a fact of which Barnes, BVW, CF Equipment, Catalyst Financial

Company, and B&V Partners were all aware. Barnes is the majority owner of, and was

the ultimate decisionmaker for, Combatt. Barnes also works for CF Equipment, is an

owner and the Senior Vice President of Catalyst Financial Company, which is the general

partner of Catalyst Finance, L.P., and is an owner of BVW and B&V Partners. While

working in these capacities, Barnes negotiated the sale of Combatt’s assets to Intense

Wireline, which resulted in most of the proceeds being paid directly to CF Equipment,

not to Combatt.

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                Page 3
        Supreme further alleged in its amended petition: Matt Vaughan is a business

partner of Barnes. Vaughan acted as a manager of Combatt but reported to Barnes.

Vaughan also had an interest in and used to work at Catalyst Financial Company and is

an owner of B&V Partners. When Supreme contacted Combatt demanding payment and

informed Combatt that if it did not pay, Supreme would be forced to file liens on the oil

and gas wells and leases on which Supreme had worked, Vaughan was the one who had

made the false promises to Supreme that Combatt would use the proceeds from the sale

of its assets to Intense Wireline to pay Supreme.                    The information that Vaughan

communicated to Supreme, however, “came from” Barnes.

        Supreme sued Barnes, BVW, CF Equipment, Catalyst Finance, L.P., Catalyst

Financial Company, and B&V Partners for fraudulent transfer and conspiracy to commit

fraudulent transfers. Supreme alleged an additional cause of action for fraud against

Barnes. Supreme also requested declaratory relief for recharacterization and equitable

subordination of any debts owed to Barnes, BVW, CF Equipment, Catalyst Finance, L.P.,

Catalyst Financial Company, and B&V Partners.

        Barnes and BVW subsequently filed their motion to dismiss Supreme’s claims

under the version of the TCPA in effect at that time.            1    After a hearing, the trial court

denied the motion to dismiss.

1The TCPA was substantially amended in 2019, but the 2019 amendments apply only to actions filed on or
after September 1, 2019. See Act of May 17, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 378, §§ 11–12. The underlying claims
against Barnes and BVW were filed in August 2019; thus, the 2019 amendments to the TCPA do not apply
Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                                Page 4
                                                  Issue

        Barnes and BVW contend the trial court erred in denying their TCPA motion to

dismiss Supreme’s claims against them.

                                         Standard of Review

        We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss under the TCPA de novo.

Martin v. Walker, 606 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, pet. denied); Holcomb v.

Waller County, 546 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). In

reviewing the trial court’s ruling, we “consider the pleadings and supporting and

opposing affidavits stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based.” Act of

May 21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 341, § 2, sec. 27.006(a) (amended 2019) (current version

at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.006(a)). “We view the pleadings and evidence

in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. v. Elkins, 553

S.W.3d 596, 603 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, pet. denied).

                                              Discussion

        “[T]he . . . TCPA protects citizens from retaliatory lawsuits that seek to intimidate

or silence them on matters of public concern.” In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Tex. 2015)

(citing House Comm. on Judiciary & Civ. Juris., Bill Analysis, Tex. H.B. 2973, 82d Leg.,

R.S. (2011)). The TCPA establishes a three-step process for the expedited dismissal of

in this case, and our discussion of the TCPA in this opinion is of the version of the TCPA in effect before
September 1, 2019. See id.
Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                                Page 5
such actions. See Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd., 546 S.W.3d 684, 691 (Tex. 2018) (per

curiam). As a threshold matter, the moving party must show by a preponderance of the

evidence that the TCPA properly applies to the “legal action” against it. Youngkin v.

Hines, 546 S.W.3d 675, 679 (Tex. 2018); see Act of May 21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 341, § 2,

sec. 27.005(b) (amended 2019) (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §

27.005(b)). A “legal action” is defined as “a lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint,

cross-claim, or counterclaim or any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal or

equitable relief.” Act of May 21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 341, § 2, sec. 27.001(6) (amended

2019) (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(6)). Dismissal under

the TCPA is therefore determined on a claim-by-claim basis. Republic Tavern & Music

Hall, LLC v. Laurenzo’s Midtown Mgmt., LLC, 618 S.W.3d 118, 122 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.). If the moving party meets the initial burden of showing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the TCPA properly applies to the legal action against

it, the nonmoving party must then establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie

case for each essential element of its claims against the moving party. Youngkin, 546

S.W.3d at 679; see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.005(c). If the nonmoving party

satisfies that requirement, the burden finally shifts back to the moving party to prove by

a preponderance of the evidence each essential element of any valid defenses to the

nonmoving party’s claims. Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 679–80; see Act of May 24, 2013, 83d

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                    Page 6
Leg., R.S., ch. 1042, § 2 (amended 2019) (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

ANN. § 27.005(d)).

       We begin with the threshold question of whether the moving parties here—Barnes

and BVW—showed by a preponderance of the evidence that the TCPA applies to

Supreme’s legal actions against them.

       Under the version of the TCPA that governs this case, a party may invoke the

TCPA dismissal procedure if the party shows by a preponderance of the evidence that

the legal action against it “is based on, relates to, or is in response to [the] party’s exercise

of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association.” Act of May 21, 2011,

82d Leg., R.S., ch. 341, § 2, sec. 27.003(a) (amended 2019) (current version at TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.003(a)); see Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 680. Barnes and BVW

contend that Supreme’s claims against them are based on or relate to their exercise of the

right of free speech and/or the right of association. The “exercise of the right of free

speech” means “a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern.”

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(3). The “exercise of the right of association”

means “a communication between individuals who join together to collectively express,

promote, pursue, or defend common interests.” Act of May 21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch.

341, § 2, sec. 27.001(2) (amended 2019) (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

ANN. § 27.001(2)).

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                      Page 7
COMMUNICATION

       First, both the exercise of the right of free speech and the exercise of the right of

association, as defined by the TCPA, require a “communication.” Id.; TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(3). A “communication” is broadly defined by the TCPA as “the

making or submitting of a statement or document in any form or medium, including oral,

visual, written, audiovisual, or electronic.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(1).

       The communication that Supreme alleged in its amended petition was that

Combatt urged Supreme not to file liens on the oil and gas wells and leases on which

Supreme worked for Combatt and Combatt’s customers because Combatt was selling

some of its assets and would use the money that it received from the sale to pay the

amount it owed to Supreme. Supreme then clarified that Combatt’s representations to

Supreme were made specifically by Vaughan. Supreme alleged, however, that the

information that Vaughan communicated to Supreme “came from” Barnes. Based on the

foregoing, we conclude that Supreme impliedly alleged that Barnes made some form of

communication to Vaughan that consisted of the information regarding Combatt that

Vaughan then conveyed to Supreme.

       Additionally, Barnes and BVW argue here that because Supreme expressly alleged

in its amended petition that Combatt, Barnes, BVW, CF Equipment, Catalyst Finance,

L.P., Catalyst Financial Company, and B&V Partners all conspired to make fraudulent

transfers, Supreme also impliedly alleged in its amended petition that Combatt, Barnes,

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                  Page 8
BVW, CF Equipment, Catalyst Finance, L.P., Catalyst Financial Company, and B&V

Partners made communications amongst themselves regarding the alleged fraudulent

transfers. See generally Bandin v. Free & Sovereign State of Veracruz de Ignacio de la Llave, 590

S.W.3d 647, 651 n.9 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, pet. denied) (stating that a

required element of civil conspiracy is “specific intent to agree to accomplish something

unlawful or to accomplish something lawful by unlawful means,” which “inherently

requires a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action, which involves, of

course, communication” (citing First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514

S.W.3d 214, 222 (Tex. 2017))). We assume without deciding that Supreme impliedly

alleged such communications by Barnes and BVW.

EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH

       Next, the exercise of the right of free speech, as defined by the TCPA, requires that

the communication be “made in connection with a matter of public concern.” TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(3). A “matter of public concern” includes “an issue

related to: (A) health or safety; (B) environmental, economic, or community well-being;

(C) the government; (D) a public official or public figure; or (E) a good, product, or service

in the marketplace.” Act of May 21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 341, § 2, sec. 27.001(7)

(amended 2019) (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(7)). Barnes

and BVW contend here that although the alleged communications concerning Combatt’s

intention and ability to pay Supreme to prevent Supreme from filing liens on the property

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                      Page 9
of Combatt’s customers were private communications, the alleged communications were

made in connection with a matter of public concern—an issue related to economic or

community well-being.

       Private communications fall within the TCPA’s definition of the exercise of the

right of free speech if they are made in connection with a matter of public concern. See

Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507, 509 (Tex. 2015) (per curiam). But the Texas

Supreme Court has made clear that “not every communication related somehow to one

of the broad categories set out in section 27.001(7) [of the Civil Practice and Remedies

Code] always regards a matter of public concern.” Creative Oil & Gas, LLC v. Lona Hills

Ranch, LLC, 591 S.W.3d 127, 137 (Tex. 2019). The court explained its reasoning as follows:

       [W]hen construing the TCPA’s list of the kinds of things meant by “matter
       of public concern,” we should not ignore the common meaning of the
       words being defined. The phrase “matter of public concern” commonly
       refers to matters “of political, social, or other concern to the community,”
       as opposed to purely private matters.

Id. at 135 (quoting Brady v. Klentzman, 515 S.W.3d 878, 884 (Tex. 2017)). Therefore, a

business dispute “affecting only the fortunes of the private parties involved” is not a

matter of public concern. Id. at 137; see Erdner v. Highland Park Emergency Ctr., LLC, 580

S.W.3d 269, 276 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. denied); see also Brugger v. Swinford, No. 14-

16-00069-CV, 2016 WL 4444036, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2016, no

pet.) (mem. op.).

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                  Page 10
       Here, the alleged communications between Barnes and Vaughan were about the

payment of a debt owed by Combatt to Supreme. The alleged communications were

private communications about a private business dispute. Barnes and BVW argue that

the alleged communications were nevertheless made in connection with a matter of

public concern because the alleged communications were made to prevent Supreme from

filing liens on the property of Combatt’s customers. Barnes and BVW contend that the

alleged communications affected the sale or transferability of real property and had an

impact on more than just the personal financial well-being of the private parties involved

in this dispute because the alleged communications had an impact on the financial well-

being of Combatt’s customers. But even though some of Combatt’s customers may have

been affected by the alleged communications, those customers consisted of a limited

group of those on whose oil and gas wells and leases Supreme had worked for Combatt.

There is no indication that the alleged communications were relevant to the broader

community or to a subset of the broader community. See Newpark Mats & Integrated Servs.,

LLC v. Cahoon Enters., LLC, 605 S.W.3d 671, 681–82 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020,

no pet.); Caliber Oil & Gas, LLC v. Midland Visions 2000, 591 S.W.3d 226, 240 (Tex. App.—

Eastland 2019, no pet.) (“A communication is related to ‘community well-being’ if it

affects the well-being of the community at large or at least a subset of its residents.”).

Accordingly, we conclude that the alleged communications were not made in connection

with a matter of public concern.

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                               Page 11
       Because the alleged communications were not made in connection with a matter

of public concern, Barnes and BVW did not meet their burden of showing, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that Supreme’s legal actions against them were based on,

related to, or were in response to an exercise of their right of free speech. See Act of May

21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 341, § 2, sec. 27.005(b) (amended 2019).

EXERCISE OF RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION

       Finally, the exercise of the right of association, as defined by the TCPA, requires

that a communication be “between individuals who join together to collectively express,

promote, pursue, or defend common interests.” Act of May 21, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch.

341, § 2, sec. 27.001(2) (amended 2019). Barnes and BVW argue that interpreting this

definition to include an element of public interest requires reading language into the

statute that is not there. Supreme responds that the phrase “common interest” must be

interpreted to include a public component.

       The TCPA does not define the word “common.” We must therefore construe the

word “according to [its] plain and common meaning, unless a contrary intention is

apparent from the context, or unless such a construction leads to absurd results.”

Youngkin, 546 S.W.3d at 680 (quoting City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625–26

(Tex. 2008) (citations omitted)). “To determine a statutory term’s common, ordinary

meaning, we typically look first to [its] dictionary definitions and then consider the term’s

usage in other statutes, court decisions, and similar authorities.” Tex. State Bd. of Exam’rs

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                  Page 12
of Marriage & Fam. Therapists v. Tex. Med. Ass’n, 511 S.W.3d 28, 35 (Tex. 2017). The relevant

dictionary meaning of the word “common” is “of or relating to a community at large:

public”     or    “known        to    the    community.”             Common,         MERRIAM-WEBSTER,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/common (last visited on January 10,

2023).

         Based on this definition, the term “common interest,” as used in the TCPA,
         means something more than allegedly tortious communications between
         individuals in the pursuit of a private business endeavor.

                 This construction of the term aligns with the conclusion of several of
         our sister courts of appeals that the exercise of the right of association under
         the TCPA requires a public or citizen component. See Tex. Custom Wine
         Works, LLC v. Talcott, [598 S.W.3d 380, 386 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2020, no
         pet.)] (concluding that the legislature intended for the right of association
         “to require some degree of group participation involving an expression
         about a matter of public interest”); Gaskamp [v. WSP USA, Inc., 596 S.W.3d
         457, 476 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. dism’d) (en banc)]
         (holding that, in the context of the TCPA, “common” means “of or relating
         to a community at large: public”); Bandin[, 590 S.W.3d at 653] (concluding
         that the type of communication envisioned by the TCPA does not
         encompass a conspiracy to convert or unlawfully appropriate property);
         Dyer v. Medoc Health Servs., LLC, 573 S.W.3d 418, 426 (Tex. App.—Dallas
         2019, pet. denied) (concluding that the exercise of the right of association
         under the TCPA must involve public or citizen participation); Kawcak v.
         Antero Res. Corp., 582 S.W.3d 566, 588 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, pet.
         denied) (“[T]he plain meaning of the word ‘common’ in TCPA section
         27.001(2)’s definition of ‘the right of association’ requires more than two
         tortfeasors conspiring to act tortiously for their own selfish benefit.”).[2]

2
 See also Segundo Navarro Drilling, Ltd. v. San Roman Ranch Min. Partners, Ltd., 612 S.W.3d 489, 493–96 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio 2020, pet. denied).
Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                                Page 13
Blue Gold Energy Barstow, LLC v. Precision Frac, LLC, No. 11-19-00238-CV, 2020 WL

1809193, at *6 (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

       Barnes and BVW point out, however, that several of our sister courts of appeals

have also held that the exercise of the right of association does not require an element of

public interest and that communications between alleged tortfeasors in furtherance of a

shared business interest do constitute the exercise of the right of association under the

TCPA. See, e.g., HDG, Ltd. v. Blaschke, No. 14-18-01017-CV, 2020 WL 1809140, at *3–4 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.); Morgan v. Clements Fluids S.

Tex., Ltd., 589 S.W.3d 177, 184–85 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, no pet.); Grant v. Pivot Tech.

Sols., Ltd., 556 S.W.3d 865, 879 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018, pet. denied); Abatecola v. 2 Savages

Concrete Pumping, LLC, No. 14-17-00678-CV, 2018 WL 3118601, at *7–8 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] June 26, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.). But, as indicated above, we

are more persuaded by the thorough analyses in the decisions from those of our sister

courts of appeals that have held that the exercise of the right of association under the

TCPA requires a public component.

       Barnes and BVW also contend that the 2019 legislative amendments to the TCPA

support an interpretation that the exercise of the right of association does not require an

element of public interest. The post-amendment definition of the exercise of the right of

association is “to join together to collectively express, promote, pursue, or defend

common interests relating to a governmental proceeding or a matter of public concern.”

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                  Page 14
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(2). Barnes and BVW argue that this post-

amendment definition suggests that the original phrase “common interests” did not

already include “relating to . . . a matter of public concern.” See id. We disagree.

       “When the meaning of an existing law is uncertain, the Legislature’s later

interpretation of it is highly persuasive.” Tex. Water Comm’n v. Brushy Creek Mun. Util.

Dist., 917 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Tex. 1996).

       As discussed, Texas courts have reached divergent conclusions when
       tasked with determining whether alleged tortfeasors, by conspiring and
       colluding with one another to commit torts in furtherance of their own
       pecuniary interests, had exercised their right of association.

              We presume that the Legislature was aware of the conflicting
       holdings in the caselaw when it enacted the 2019 amendments. See In re
       Allen, 366 S.W.3d 696, 706 (Tex. 2012) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that
       courts presume Legislature “is aware of relevant case law when it enacts or
       modifies statutes”). With this awareness, the Legislature elected to limit the
       object of the exercise of the right of association to “common interests[ ]
       relating to a governmental proceeding or a matter of public concern.” Act
       of May 17, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 378, § 1, sec. 27.001(2) . . . (codified at
       TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 27.001(2)). In amending the statute, the
       Legislature chose to define “common interests” in a manner most in line
       with the holdings in Kawcak and Dyer, which determined that tortfeasors,
       conspiring and colluding for their own private financial gain, are not
       entitled to protection under the right of association. See Dyer, 573 S.W.3d at
       427; Kawcak, 582 S.W.3d at 588. By limiting “common interests” to those
       interests related to government proceedings or matters of public concern
       (as defined in the amended statute), the Legislature clarified that the
       exercise of the right of association was never intended to include an alleged
       tortfeasor’s acts taken in furtherance of private interests.

Gaskamp, 596 S.W.3d at 475–76.

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                       Page 15
       The alleged communications here were private communications about a private

business dispute and private communications among alleged co-conspirators. There is

no allegation that the communications involved any public or community interests.

Therefore, Barnes and BVW did not meet their burden of showing, by a preponderance

of the evidence, that Supreme’s legal actions against them were based on, related to, or

were in response to an exercise of their right of association. See Act of May 21, 2011, 82d

Leg., R.S., ch. 341, § 2, sec. 27.005(b) (amended 2019).

       Because Barnes and BVW did not meet their burden of showing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the TCPA applies to Supreme’s legal actions against

them, we need not reach whether Supreme established by clear and specific evidence a

prima facie case for each essential element of its claims against Barnes and BVW or

whether Barnes and BVW proved by a preponderance of the evidence each essential

element of any valid defenses to Supreme’s claims.

                                        Conclusion

       In light of the foregoing, we overrule Barnes’s and BVW’s issue and affirm the trial

court’s order denying their TCPA motion to dismiss.

                                                  MATT JOHNSON
                                                  Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Johnson, and
       Justice Smith
Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.                                                Page 16
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed January 18, 2023
[CV06]

Barnes v. Supreme Serv. & Supply Co.           Page 17