Ali Lahijani and Mega Shipping, LLC v. Melifera Partners, LLC, MW Realty Group, and Melissa Walters, 01-14-01025-CV

Background

Plaintiffs (Melifera Partners, MW Realty, and Melissa Walters) sued appellants (Lahijani and Mega Shipping) for libel, libel per se, and business disparagement based on statements made during settlement negotiations and pre-suit communications about Walters’ alleged attempt to claim a broker’s commission.
Defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), asserting the statements related to matters of public concern and were therefore protected speech; they also invoked the absolute judicial communications privilege.
Key factual contentions: Walters allegedly failed to obtain written consent required by the Texas Real Estate License Act yet claimed a $19,500 commission; Walters performed managerial services for defendants and charged fees for those services.
Plaintiffs opposed the TCPA dismissal and submitted an affidavit by Walters asserting the statements were false, defamatory, caused reputational and pecuniary harm, and were made with malice; the affidavit contained largely conclusory assertions without detailed, specific factual proof.
Defendants argued (1) the TCPA applies because the disputed statements relate to economic/community well‑being and services in the marketplace, (2) the communications were privileged as judicial communications even if preliminary, and (3) plaintiffs failed to marshal the clear and specific evidence required by the TCPA to establish each element of their claims.
Procedural posture: Appeal from denial of defendants’ TCPA motion to dismiss; defendants seek dismissal with prejudice and fees/sanctions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TCPA applies to the complained‑of statements	Walters: statements were private and/or false so TCPA should not apply	Lahijani: statements addressed alleged illegal commission and services in the marketplace, so TCPA applies	TCPA applies: statements relate to economic/community well‑being and marketplace services; movant may rely on pleadings and evidence to establish applicability
Whether privately communicated speech is covered by TCPA	Plaintiffs initially argued private communications fall outside TCPA	Defendants: TCPA covers private communications; courts need not require public advertising	Court treats private communications as potentially covered under TCPA (plaintiffs abandoned prior contrary argument)
Whether absolute judicial communications privilege bars claims	Plaintiffs: privilege limited and does not cover private pre‑proceeding communications to non‑law‑enforcement recipients	Defendants: privilege extends to communications preliminary to proposed judicial proceedings; protects statements made to counsel and parties	Judicial communications privilege applies and can independently support dismissal under TCPA §27.005(d)
Whether plaintiffs marshaled clear and specific evidence of prima facie case	Walters: affidavit shows falsity, malice, reputational and pecuniary harm	Defendants: Walters’ affidavit is conclusory, lacks specific verifiable facts (no specific quoted defamatory statements, no proof of falsity, damages, or actual malice)	Plaintiffs failed to present the clear and specific evidence required by TCPA; many contested statements are non‑actionable opinions or not defamatory as a matter of law

Key Cases Cited

In re Lipsky, 411 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2013) (mandamus proceeding on TCPA burden and standards)
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496 (U.S. 1991) (definition of actual malice in defamation law)
Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (actual malice standard and opinion vs. fact analysis in defamation)
Forbes, Inc. v. Granada Biosciences, Inc., 124 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. 2003) (reckless disregard and standards for actual malice)
Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (statements not verifiable as false cannot sustain defamation)
New Times, Inc. v. Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. 2004) (actual malice vs. ill will; evidence required)
Better Business Bureau of Metro. Houston v. John Moore Servs., 441 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (conclusory affidavit statements insufficient under TCPA)
American Heritage Capital, LP v. Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d 865 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (certain critical statements held non‑actionable opinion or not defamatory as a matter of law)