Elite Auto Body LLC v. Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc.
520 S.W.3d 191
| Tex. App. | 2017Background
- Autocraft Bodywerks sued former employees (Damian, Hernandez) and a competitor (Precision) alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, use of confidential personnel/financial materials, unfair competition, breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy; it sought injunctive and monetary relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), asserting Autocraft’s claims "relate to" defendants’ communications (association and free speech) and were SLAPP-like efforts to chill protected activity; defendants supported the motion with affidavits denying trade-secret status.
- Autocraft responded with an affidavit asserting the information was confidential/trade secrets but otherwise presented no detailed, claim-by-claim evidence at the TCPA hearing.
- The trial court excluded live testimony defendants sought to offer at the hearing, considered only pleadings and affidavits, and denied the TCPA motion; defendants appealed.
- The court of appeals analyzed whether (1) the TCPA’s definition of "communication" covers internal or commercial communications implicated here and (2) Autocraft met the TCPA’s heightened second-step burden to establish a prima facie case with clear and specific evidence for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Autocraft's claims are "based on, relate to, or in response to" defendants' TCPA-protected communications (initial burden) | Autocraft: claims seek to remedy non-communicative wrongful conduct (misappropriation/use of trade secrets), so TCPA doesn't apply | Defendants: claims are predicated in part on defendants' internal and recruiting communications (thus are "communications" under the TCPA definitions) | Held: Defendants met the initial burden as to claims predicated on defendants' communications; TCPA "communication" is defined broadly and covers internal/commercial statements per Coleman and the statute's plain meaning |
| Whether Autocraft established by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of its claims (second-step burden) | Autocraft: its affidavit shows the information is confidential/trade secrets and suffices to avoid dismissal | Defendants: Autocraft offered no claim-by-claim, element-by-element clear and specific evidence at the hearing | Held: Autocraft failed to meet the second-step standard; dismissal of claims based on defendants' communications was required (partial dismissal rendered; attorney’s-fee issue remanded) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding defendants' live testimony at the TCPA hearing | Defendants: live testimony was necessary to meet initial burden and rebut Autocraft's affidavit | Autocraft: TCPA contemplates reliance on pleadings and affidavits; trial court acted within its discretion | Held: Court did not need to resolve because defendants met initial burden on other grounds; exclusion issue rendered moot by reversal in part |
Key Cases Cited
- ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman, 512 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. 2017) (interpreting TCPA definitions broadly and holding internal statements can be "communications" "in connection with" matters of public concern; courts must apply the statute's plain meaning)
- Lippincott v. Whisenhunt, 462 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA does not require communications to be public in form)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (establishing that plaintiffs must present clear and specific evidence of a prima facie case for each essential element at the TCPA second step)