Christopher Scott Brann v. Carlos Guimaraes and Jemima Guimaraes
01-19-00439-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- In 2013 Marcelle Guimaraes took her son Nathaniel to Brazil under a temporary travel agreement and did not return; she obtained custody in Brazil and remained there.
- Christopher Brann (Chris) pursued civil and criminal avenues to recover custody, including a Hague petition, testimony before congressional committees, and a criminal complaint to the U.S. Attorney.
- Carlos and Jemima Guimaraes (the Guimaraeses) were later indicted and tried federally for conspiracy and aiding and abetting international parental kidnapping; the jury acquitted them of conspiracy but convicted them of aiding and abetting; they did not appeal their convictions.
- The Guimaraeses sued Chris in Texas state court asserting fraud on the court, false imprisonment, slander (including slander per se), and two Penal Code violations, alleging Chris made false statements that caused their wrongful convictions and reputational harm.
- Chris moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA); the trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Chris met his TCPA burdens and that the Guimaraeses failed to overcome exemptions and defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the TCPA apply (was suit "based on, relates to, or in response to" petitioning)? | Guimaraeses: claims are torts not protected by petitioning immunity. | Brann: claims rest on testimony, legislative testimony, a criminal complaint, and media statements — all petitioning communications. | TCPA applies; defendant met initial burden. |
| Do statutory exemptions (bodily injury; common-law fraud) remove TCPA coverage? | Guimaraeses: false imprisonment is bodily injury; fraud-on-court claim falls within fraud exemption. | Brann: false imprisonment here alleges reputational/emotional harm not physical bodily injury; fraud exemption is not retroactive (suit pre-dates amendment). | Exemptions do not apply; bodily-injury exemption inapplicable and fraud exemption not available. |
| Did plaintiffs state prima facie Penal Code private causes of action? | Guimaraeses: asserted Penal Code violations as claims. | Brann: Penal Code violations do not create private causes of action. | Plaintiffs cannot maintain private Penal Code claims; no prima facie case. |
| If plaintiffs could state claims, are they barred by defenses (collateral estoppel; absolute/conditional privileges)? | Guimaraeses: various statements were false and defamatory, causing wrongful conviction and damage. | Brann: his trial and legislative testimony are absolutely privileged; the criminal complaint is conditionally privileged; many contested issues are precluded by his convictions. | Many claims dismissed: collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues essential to convictions; absolute and conditional privileges bar remaining claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greer v. Abraham, 489 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. 2016) (overview of TCPA's expedited dismissal scheme)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (burden-shifting framework under TCPA)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Writt, 464 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2015) (absolute privilege for statements in judicial and legislative proceedings)
- Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. Cowan, 945 S.W.2d 819 (Tex. 1997) (definition of bodily injury as physical harm)
- Cavin v. Abbott, 545 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017) (TCPA bodily-injury analysis)
- Espinosa v. Aaron’s Rents, Inc., 484 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016) (conditional privilege for initial crime reports)
- Cuba v. Pylant, 814 F.3d 701 (5th Cir. 2016) (conditional privilege in reports to law enforcement)
- Daystar Residential, Inc. v. Collmer, 176 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (media communications and absolute privilege)
- James v. Calkins, 446 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (TCPA applies to common-law fraud claims under the prior version)