Bob Deuell v. Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc.
01-15-00617-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- Appellant Bob Deuell is a sitting Texas State Senator appealing an adverse ruling in Harris County,” Court from Appellee Texas Right to Life Committee, Inc.'s tortious-interference suit.
- Deuell’s attorneys sent letters to radio broadcasters criticizing ads run during a runoff election.
- The ads targeted SB 303 and related political campaigning and were communicated in a public medium.
- Appellee alleged tortious interference with existing contracts caused by Deuell’s letters.
- Deuell moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing the suit targeted his exercise of free speech and petition rights.
- The trial court had not dismissed the case prior to appeal, prompting this TCPA-based defense and request for dismissal with costs and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TCPA apply to Deuell’s letters as speech on a public concern? | Deuell’s speech protected by TCPA as matter of public concern. | Speech regarding a runoff election/trade of political ads fits TCPA's public-concern speech. | Yes; letters relate to public concern and petition rights, triggering TCPA protection. |
| Did Appellee prove a clear-and-specific prima facie case for tortious interference? | Appellee met all elements with specific evidence and contracts. | Appellee failed to provide clear and specific evidence for each element; some facts unsupported. | No; Appellee failed to prove elements with clear and specific evidence. |
| Did Appellee waive objections to affirmative defenses (judicial privilege and illegal contract)? | Appellee challenged pleadings and evidence to defenses. | Appellee did not contest pleadings or evidence; defenses are unchallenged. | Yes; Appellee waived objections, warranting dismissal under TCPA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Serafine v. Blunt, 466 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. App.—Austin, 2015) (threat to file a lawsuit is protected by the TCPA as a petition-right action)
- James v. Calkins, 446 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.], 2014) (fraudulent-lien claim based on filing of lis pendens related to judicial proceedings under TCPA)
- Lipsky I, 411 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, 2013) (pleadings may be considered evidence under TCPA; movant's right to petition is protected)
- ACS Investors, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 943 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. 1997) (contract subject to interference must be valid and capable of interference)