Creative Oil & Gas Operating, Llc v. Lona Hills Ranch, Llc, 591 S.W.3d 127

Background

Lona Hills Ranch (Ranch) held an oil & gas lease and sued Creative Oil & Gas, LLC (Lessee) for lease termination and trespass; Creative Oil & Gas Operating, LLC (Operator) (wholly owned by Lessee) operated the producing well.
Lessee and Operator asserted counterclaims mainly: (1) Ranch told third-party purchasers the lease had expired, causing purchasers to withhold proceeds; (2) Ranch breached the lease’s notice-and-cure provision by filing suit and bringing a Railroad Commission action.
Ranch moved to dismiss the counterclaims under the pre-2019 TCPA, claiming (a) the third‑party communications were an exercise of free speech (communications on a matter of public concern) and (b) the filings were an exercise of the right to petition.
Trial court denied (deemed overruled); court of appeals held the third‑party communications were an exercise of free speech and dismissed those counterclaims for failure to make a prima facie case, and held the Operator’s petition‑based counterclaim fell under the TCPA and was dismissible because the Operator lacked privity; it held the Lessee’s petition counterclaim was not covered by the TCPA.
The Texas Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held the third‑party communications were not matters of public concern (so TCPA did not apply to those counterclaims), affirmed dismissal of the Operator’s petition‑based claim (no privity), and left the Lessee’s petition claim undisturbed.

Issues

Issue	Ranch's Argument	Lessee/Operator's Argument	Held
Whether communications to third‑party purchasers were an "exercise of the right of free speech" (a "matter of public concern") under the TCPA	Communications involved a lease and its products and thus implicated a good/service in the marketplace	Communications were private business statements about a single well and a private contract dispute, not public‑marketplace matters	Held: Not a matter of public concern; TCPA does not cover these communications (court of appeals' dismissals reversed)
Whether filing suit and the Railroad Commission complaint were an "exercise of the right to petition" under the TCPA	Filings are communications in judicial/administrative proceedings and thus fall within TCPA petition protections	Lessee argued claim was contract‑based (notice & cure) and not predicated on petition; Ranch asserted petition protection	Held: Filings are an exercise of the right to petition under the TCPA (statutory definition applies)
Whether the Operator (non‑party to lease) can recover for breach of the lease’s notice‑and‑cure provision	Ranch: Operator not a party to the lease and thus lacks privity	Operator: Claimed injury from Ranch’s filings and interest as operator/affiliated entity	Held: Operator cannot recover on the lease breach claim for lack of privity; dismissal affirmed
Whether the Lessee’s petition‑based counterclaim was covered by the TCPA	Ranch argued claim was within TCPA because it related to petitioning activity	Lessee argued its claim was a contract breach not factually predicated on the right to petition	Held: Court of appeals held Lessee’s claim was not covered by the TCPA; Supreme Court did not disturb that ruling (Ranch did not cross‑petition)

Key Cases Cited

Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, LLC, 547 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2018) (TCPA definitions and scope; interpretive principles)
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. 2017) (private statements may be public‑concern matters when tied to safety/environmental risks)
Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (health/safety or professional conduct can be matters of public concern)
In re Ford Motor Co., 442 S.W.3d 265 (Tex. 2014) (statutory definitions interpreted in light of ordinary meaning and context)
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (apply statutes as written; avoid rewriting legislative text)
Ritchie v. Rupe, 443 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. 2014) (give effect to every word in statutory construction)