Justin Jordan v. Benjamin Hall, III, 510 S.W.3d 194

In Oct 2015 Ben Hall sued Justin Jordan alleging Jordan placed a defamatory/illegal political radio ad during Hall’s mayoral campaign and asserted multiple claims including defamation, fraud, mail/telecom fraud, money laundering, and election-code violations.
Jordan voluntarily appeared three days after filing (Oct 30, 2015) and filed a general denial plus special exceptions challenging several causes of action.
The trial court sustained Jordan’s special exceptions and ordered Hall to replead; Hall filed a supplemental petition on Dec 21, 2015 that more specifically pleaded some fraud-related elements but relied on the same core factual allegation (the radio ad).
Jordan filed a TCPA motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016 (about five months after his answer); Hall moved to strike it as untimely under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(b) (60-day deadline after service).
Jordan argued the 60-day TCPA deadline never began because he was not served (he voluntarily appeared) and alternatively argued the deadline was tolled by the court’s order sustaining special exceptions and Hall’s supplemental petition.
The trial court denied the TCPA motion as untimely; the First Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hall)	Defendant's Argument (Jordan)	Held
Whether the TCPA 60-day filing period runs from service when defendant voluntarily appears	60-day clock runs from service; voluntary appearance does not matter	Voluntary appearance is not service of the “legal action,” so the 60-day period never began	The 60-day period began when Jordan voluntarily appeared by filing an answer; motion was untimely
Whether the TCPA 60-day deadline was tolled/reset by the trial court sustaining special exceptions and plaintiff’s supplemental petition	Deadline not tolled when amended petition relies on same factual allegations	Tolling/reset because court ordered repleading and supplemental petition supposedly insufficient	The deadline was not tolled or reset because the supplement relied on the same underlying facts; motion remained untimely

Bacharach v. Garcia, 485 S.W.3d 600 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016) (voluntary appearance triggers TCPA 60‑day deadline)
Paulsen v. Yarrell, 455 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (TCPA’s purpose is early dismissal of suits inhibiting protected rights; amended petition relying on same facts does not reset deadline)
James v. Calkins, 446 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (new claims based on different facts in amended petition can reset TCPA timing)
Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Hous., Inc. v. John Moore Servs., Inc., 441 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (de novo review of TCPA dismissal rulings)
In re Estate of Check, 438 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014) (discussing TCPA purpose and early dismissal)
Paulsen and related Texas appellate authority interpreting TCPA timelines and waiver of service under voluntary appearance principles