Ali Lahijani and Mega Shipping, LLC v. Melifera Partners, LLC, MW Realty Group, and Melissa Walters
01-14-01025-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 3, 2015Background
- Melifera Partners (managed by broker Melissa Walters and MW Realty) and Mega Shipping (manager Ali Lahijani) jointly purchased a foreclosed property that later sold at a profit.
- Walters, on behalf of Melifera, managed the property, advanced repair and maintenance costs, and claimed a 6% broker commission on sale; Melifera sought 50% reimbursement of expenses from Mega Shipping.
- Lahijani disputed the commission and the expenses in emails to Walters and the title company, calling some expenses “phantom” and proposing a reduced commission.
- Melifera sued Lahijani and Mega Shipping for declaratory relief, fraud, negligence, libel, and business disparagement.
- Appellants moved to dismiss the libel and business disparagement claims under the Texas Citizen’s Participation Act (TCPA); the trial court denied the motion, and appellants appealed interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether libel and business disparagement claims are "based on" exercise of free speech under TCPA | Melifera: Lahijani's statements are not protected; they are defamatory and disparaging | Lahijani: Emails/statements were communications on matters of public concern (services in marketplace) and thus protected under TCPA | Court: Not covered by TCPA — statements concerned a private business dispute, not a matter of public concern |
| Whether statements involved a "matter of public concern" under TCPA | Melifera: Brokerage and property-management issues here are private, not public | Lahijani: Walters provided regulated services and managerial services in marketplace; claims relate to public-interest services | Court: Statements were limited to contract/dispute over commission and expenses, not public matters; TCPA not shown |
| Whether absolute judicial-communications privilege applies | Melifera: Privilege irrelevant to TCPA determination; claims remain | Lahijani: Statements made in contemplation of litigation are absolutely privileged | Court: Privilege issue not properly before this interlocutory TCPA appeal; court did not decide privilege |
| Whether plaintiffs presented clear and specific prima facie evidence under TCPA (if TCPA applied) | Melifera: Plaintiffs had pleaded elements of libel/disparagement (but court need not reach because TCPA not shown) | Lahijani: Plaintiffs cannot make prima facie showing amid protected speech defense | Court: Because defendants failed to show TCPA applies, court did not address plaintiffs' prima facie burden |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (explaining TCPA purpose and summary-dismissal framework)
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (review standard for first-step TCPA legal question)
- ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 464 S.W.3d 841 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (communications limited to internal/business matters are not TCPA-protected matters of public concern)
- James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1982) (absolute judicial communications privilege bars defamation claims for statements made in due course of judicial proceedings)
- Daystar Residential, Inc. v. Collmer, 176 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (judicial-communications privilege extends to statements made in contemplation of litigation)