Bob Deuell v. Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc., 508 S.W.3d 679

Background

In May 2014, Texas Right to Life Committee (TRLC) contracted with Cumulus and Salem to air a radio ad critical of State Senator Bob Deuell during a runoff election; the ads had aired starting early May.
On May 14, 2014, Deuell’s lawyers sent nearly identical cease-and-desist letters to Cumulus and Salem, calling the ads false and defamatory and threatening litigation; both stations suspended airing the ads.
TRLC produced a replacement ad and purchased additional airtime with CBS Radio Texas, incurring about $15,037 in additional placement costs and other production expenses.
TRLC sued Deuell for tortious interference with contract seeking damages for the replacement production and additional airtime; Deuell moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).
The trial court denied Deuell’s TCPA motion; on interlocutory appeal the court of appeals assumed (but did not decide) TCPA coverage and addressed whether TRLC established a prima facie tortious-interference claim and whether Deuell proved affirmative defenses of judicial privilege or illegality.
The court affirmed the denial of dismissal, holding TRLC offered clear and specific evidence of the contract, willful interference, causation, and damages; judicial privilege and illegality defenses failed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (TRLC)	Defendant's Argument (Deuell)	Held
Whether the TCPA applies and bars the suit	TRLC contended its claim survives because it proved a prima facie tortious-interference claim	Deuell argued the suit relates to his protected free-speech TCPA activity (letters about a public concern) and thus must be dismissed	Court assumed TCPA applied for purposes of appeal but found TRLC met its prima facie burden and denied dismissal
Existence of contract subject to interference	TRLC relied on executive director affidavit identifying dates, counterparties, and amounts paid to show contracts with Cumulus and Salem	Deuell argued TRLC failed to attach contracts or prove contractual terms, so burden not met	Court held affidavit provided clear and specific evidence of contracts (minimum quantum required)
Willful, intentional interference and causation/damages	TRLC showed stations ceased airing after receiving Deuell’s letters and alleged replacement costs for production and CBS airtime	Deuell argued TRLC’s evidence was conclusory, lacked detail on who notified TRLC/how, and damages were speculative; also argued stations had discretion to suspend ads	Court held Deuell’s letters + TRLC affidavit suffice to show intentional interference and proximate causation of specific economic damages at this TCPA stage
Affirmative defenses: judicial privilege and illegality	TRLC argued its damages were contract-based economic losses, not reputational or defamation damages, so judicial privilege does not apply; also argued Election Code defense fails	Deuell argued absolute judicial privilege protects letters made in contemplation of litigation and that contracts were illegal under Election Code §255.001	Court held judicial privilege inapplicable because TRLC seeks contract-based damages (not defamation-type losses); illegality defense failed (statutory basis conceded inarguable on appeal)

Key Cases Cited

In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (explains TCPA burdens and that plaintiff must adduce clear and specific evidence to make a prima facie case)
Holloway v. Skinner, 898 S.W.2d 793 (Tex. 1995) (elements of tortious interference with contract)
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., 29 S.W.3d 74 (Tex. 2000) (discussion of tortious-interference elements)
James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1982) (absolute judicial privilege for statements made in course of judicial proceedings)
Bird v. W.C.W., 868 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. 1994) (judicial privilege extends to claims where damages essentially flow from reputational harm)
Laub v. Pesikoff, 979 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (privilege can bar tortious-interference claims when damages are defamation-type)
Crain v. Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 11 S.W.3d 328 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (same)
Better Bus. Bur. of Metro. Houston, Inc. v. John Moore Servs., Inc., 441 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (insufficient evidence of contract terms defeats TCPA prima facie showing)
Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, Ltd., 416 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (TCPA review standard and evidentiary posture)
ACS Inv’rs, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. 1997) (inducing a party to do what it has a right to do is not actionable interference)