KTRK Television, Inc. v. Theaola Robinson, 409 S.W.3d 682

Background

Theaola Robinson founded Benji’s Special Education Academy (BSEA), a charter school, and served as its superintendent; TEA repeatedly investigated BSEA for academic and financial problems.
TEA notified Robinson in 2010 it would appoint a Board of Managers and new superintendent, and shortly thereafter suspended charter operations and funding due to urgent fiscal deficiencies (including unpaid IRS debt, retirement contributions, and questionable lease arrangements).
Robinson resisted the TEA actions, reopened the school as a private operation, and held a press conference; local media, including KTRK, reported on TEA’s findings and questioned how roughly $3 million in state funds were accounted for.
Robinson sued KTRK for defamation based on multiple broadcasts/articles stating the State could not account for millions in taxpayer funds.
KTRK filed a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA); the trial court denied the motion and KTRK appealed interlocutorily under section 27.008 of the TCPA.
The court of appeals considered (1) whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a signed TCPA denial order and (2) whether Robinson established by clear and specific evidence a prima facie defamation per se claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal from signed TCPA denial order	Robinson: Section 27.008 only allows appeal when motion is denied by operation of law, not when court signs an order	KTRK: TCPA section 27.008(b)-(c) permits interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s written order denying a TCPA motion	Court: Agreed with Fourteenth Court reasoning; section 27.008 permits interlocutory appeal from a signed order denying TCPA motion; jurisdiction exists
Whether KTRK’s statements were covered by the TCPA (i.e., were exercise of free speech/petition)	Robinson did not contest coverage	KTRK: Statements were exercises of free speech reporting on government action	Court: Statements were covered by the TCPA; plaintiff did not dispute coverage, so moved to second-step analysis
Whether Robinson showed by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case of defamation per se (falsity and defamatory meaning)	Robinson: KTRK implied she embezzled/committed criminal wrongdoing by reporting millions unaccounted for; third-party comments show reputational harm	KTRK: Reports accurately conveyed TEA’s findings that records were insufficient to account for funds; statements were substantially true or non-defamatory in context	Court: Robinson failed to show the complained-of statements were defamatory per se on their face; statements reported TEA’s findings and did not unambiguously impute criminal conduct
Whether trial court erred in denying TCPA motion and dismissal required	Robinson: Denial proper because clear and specific evidence supported defamation per se claim	KTRK: Denial erroneous because plaintiff failed TCPA second-step burden	Court: Trial court erred; reverse denial and remand to effectuate dismissal under TCPA

Key Cases Cited

Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standing principle: courts must resolve jurisdictional challenges before merits)
Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (final-judgment rule for appeals)
CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444 (Tex. 2011) (statutory interlocutory-appeal provisions construed narrowly)
WFAA–TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (elements of defamation claim)
Bentley v. Bunton, 94 S.W.3d 561 (Tex. 2002) (defamation damages and per se/per quod distinctions)
TGS–NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (interpretation of statutory terms; ordinary meaning)
Carr v. Brasher, 776 S.W.2d 567 (Tex. 1989) (whether words are capable of defamatory meaning is a question of law)