Craig v. Tejas Promotions, LLC, 550 S.W.3d 287

Tejas Promotions (Promotions) operates in electronic sweepstakes, distributing proprietary promotional software to retail venues under confidentiality agreements and claims trade secrets in vendor identities, clients, pricing, and marketing.
Promotions and Bruce Craig executed an NDA during purchase negotiations; Promotions alleges Bruce shared NDA-protected Confidential Information with his son Tyler and with Tejas Vending L.P., leading to loss of vendors and sub-licensees.
Promotions pleaded five categories of relief: (1) breach of NDA damages/fees vs. Bruce; (2) damages under Texas Trade Secrets Act (Ch. 134A) vs. Bruce, Tyler, Vending; (3) injunctive relief; (4) common-law conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets; (5) multiple UDJA declaratory-judgment claims about NDA validity and confidential status of information.
Defendants (Bruce, Tyler, Vending) moved under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) to dismiss only the conspiracy claim and the UDJA declaratory claims, asserting those claims were based on TCPA-protected "exercise of the right of association." They sought dismissal, fees, and sanctions.
Promotions nonsuited the conspiracy claim before the hearing and amended some declaratory claims; the trial court denied the TCPA motion after argument. Defendants appealed; appeal stays trial proceedings.

Issue	Promotions' Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether the TCPA applies and requires dismissal of Promotions' common-law conspiracy claim	Conspiracy alleges misuse of trade secrets and communications among defendants; Promotions did not oppose nonsuit and made no prima facie showing	Conspiracy is a "legal action" based on defendants' exercise of association (communications among conspirators); TCPA applies and plaintiffs failed to prove prima facie case	Court: TCPA initial-burden met as matter of law (Autocraft). Because Promotions made no prima facie showing and the claim was nonsuited, TCPA dismissal and fee/sanctions award rendered for that claim.
Whether TCPA motion could challenge Promotions' UDJA declaratory-judgment claims independently	UDJA claims seek declarations about NDA validity and confidential status; Promotions contends these are proper, justiciable declarations and were not fee-seeking under UDJA	Declaratory claims are "legal actions" tied to defendants' alleged communications; defendants argue TCPA applies to dismiss them	Court: Decl. claims are subsumed within broader causes of action (breach, Ch.134A, injunctive claims) that defendants waived by not moving; dismissing declaratory claims would be advisory or moot; court did not err in denying TCPA relief as to UDJA claims.

Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc., 520 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017) (applied TCPA’s broad, plain-meaning definition of "communication" and held TCPA can cover claims arising from alleged misuse of trade secrets via communications among conspirators)
Cavin v. Abbott, 545 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017) (explains TCPA burden-shifting framework and that claims may "relate to" protected communications)
Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462 (Tex. 2017) (holds material pleadings count as evidence to meet movant’s initial TCPA burden)
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. 2017) (clarified that TCPA definitions are not limited by First Amendment constitutional scope; courts should apply statutory text)
MBM Financial Corp. v. Woodlands Operating Co., 292 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. 2009) (addresses overlap between declaratory relief and underlying causes of action and limits on UDJA attorney's fees when claims are duplicative)