Jetall Companies, Inc. v. JPG Waco Heritage LLC
10-21-00135-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 1, 2021Background
- Dispute arose over sale of property at 215 Washington Avenue, Waco; Jetall Companies alleged JPG intended to sell to a third party and filed lis pendens.
- Trial court expunged the lis pendens and entered a temporary injunction preventing further lis pendens filings; Jetall then sued JPG for breach, fraud, and fraudulent inducement.
- JPG counterclaimed (after successive amendments) for tortious interference with an existing contract and for a fraudulent lien, alleging Jetall’s lis pendens filings (four notices) disrupted an $8 million sale and caused $40,000 in damages.
- Jetall filed a TCPA motion to dismiss JPG’s counterclaims; the trial court held a hearing but did not rule within the 30-day statutory period, so the motion was deemed denied by operation of law under the TCPA.
- On appeal, Jetall argued (1) its TCPA motion was timely because later amendments restarted the 60-day filing period, (2) the TCPA applies to tortious-interference claims based on a lis pendens, and (3) a lis pendens cannot give rise to tortious-interference as a matter of law.
- The court held the third amended counterclaim did not add new parties, claims, or essential factual allegations that would restart the 60-day TCPA deadline; Jetall’s motion (filed ~10 months after the first amended counterclaim) was untimely, so the denial by operation of law was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jetall) | Defendant's Argument (JPG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jetall’s TCPA motion was timely | Amendments to JPG’s counterclaims restarted the 60-day TCPA period | Amendments did not add new parties, claims, or essential factual allegations, so deadline stood from first amended counterclaim | The amendments did not restart the 60-day period; Jetall’s motion (filed ~10 months later) was untimely; affirmation of denial |
| Whether the TCPA applies to tortious-interference claims based on a lis pendens | TCPA applies to these interference claims | JPG maintains TCPA inapplicable or merits defense; factual dispute | Court did not reach merits because timeliness was dispositive; argument premised on timeliness failed |
| Whether a notice of lis pendens can never give rise to tortious interference as a matter of law | A lis pendens cannot, as matter of law, support tortious interference | JPG contends lis pendens may support interference depending on facts | Court did not decide on the legal sufficiency because TCPA deadline resolution was dispositive |
| Appealability of denial-by-operation-of-law | Denial by operation of law permits immediate appeal and review | JPG implicitly concedes appealability but defends the denial on the merits | Motion was considered denied by operation of law and was appealable; appellate court affirmed on timeliness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Montelongo v. Abrea, 622 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2021) (defines when amended pleadings restart TCPA 60-day deadline)
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (trial court must consider pleadings and evidence on TCPA motions)
- Schmidt v. Crawford, 584 S.W.3d 640 (Tex. App. — Houston 2019) (de novo review standard for TCPA denial)
- TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. v. Ruiz, 611 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2020) (amendments that add only detail do not restart TCPA clock)
- Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1991) (one-satisfaction rule applies to multiple acts causing single injury)