Landry's, Inc. and Houston Aquarium, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, Carney Anne Nasser, and Cheryl Conley, 566 S.W.3d 41

Background

Landry’s, Inc. and Houston Aquarium sued ALDF, attorney Carney Anne Nasser, and radio host Cheryl Conley after ALDF/Nasser/Conley sent a 60‑day Notice of Intent to sue under the Endangered Species Act and published related statements alleging poor care of four white tigers.
ALDF published a press release, social media posts, and provided the Notice to multiple media outlets; media outlets reported and quoted from those materials.
The Conley Parties moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), asserting the judicial‑proceedings privilege/attorney immunity and other defenses; the trial court granted dismissal, denied discovery, awarded attorneys’ fees and imposed $250,000 sanctions against ALDF and $200,000 against Conley (plus conditional appellate fee awards).
On appeal, the court held the judicial‑proceedings privilege applied to the challenged statements relating to the contemplated ESA suit and found Landry’s failed to produce clear and specific evidence to establish prima facie cases for abuse of process, trespass, conspiracy to commit theft, business disparagement, and tortious interference.
The court affirmed dismissal, vacated conditional appellate fee awards to a withdrawn firm, and concluded the sanctions awards were excessive; it suggested remittitur reducing ALDF’s sanctions to $103,191.26 and Conley’s to $71,295.00, conditioned on acceptance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether allegedly defamatory statements were actionable or privileged	Landry’s: statements were false factual allegations harming reputation and caused damage	Conley Parties: statements related to a contemplated judicial proceeding and are protected by the judicial‑proceedings privilege/attorney immunity	Judicial‑proceedings privilege applied as a matter of law to the communications; defamation claims dismissed
Whether Landry’s established business disparagement / tortious interference (economic harm)	Landry’s: lost bookings and publicity caused economic loss	Conley Parties: plaintiff failed to link specific defamatory statements to lost customers; other publicity sources existed; privilege blocks many statements	Landry’s failed to present clear, specific evidence of causation and damages; claims dismissed
Whether other torts (abuse of process, trespass, conspiracy to commit theft) had prima facie support	Landry’s: Notice, media outreach, and Conley’s facility visit constituted improper process/trespass/ conspiracy to take the tigers	Conley Parties: no court‑issued process was used; Conley had consent to tour; no appropriation occurred	Court: abuse of process fails because no judicial process issued; trespass fails (consent not vitiated); conspiracy to commit theft fails (no appropriation)
Whether TCPA is unconstitutional (jury trial, open courts, discovery limits, sanctions discretion)	Landry’s: TCPA deprives jury of fact issues, limits discovery, improperly vests discretion in sanctioning	Conley Parties: TCPA procedures and sanctions are constitutional and applied properly	Court: TCPA not unconstitutional as applied here; disputed facts were immaterial; discovery denial not abuse; sanction‑provision not facially invalid
Whether sanctions and fee awards were proper and in appropriate amounts	Landry’s: sanctions ($450,000) excessive; conditional appellate fee awards improper where firm withdrew	Conley Parties: sanctions and fee awards justified to deter SLAPP‑style suits	Court: conditional appellate fee awards to withdrawn firm vacated; sanctions excessive relative to objective guideposts; remittitur suggested to equal awarded trial attorneys’ fees

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Durant, 550 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. 2018) (elements and damages rules for defamation)
In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (TCPA burden and plaintiff’s evidentiary showing)
Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd, 467 S.W.3d 477 (Tex. 2015) (attorney immunity / privilege for conduct within scope of representation)
Shell Oil Co. v. Writt, 464 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. 2015) (privilege extends to statements related to contemplated proceedings)
Turner v. KTRK Television, Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. 2000) (defamation: objective test for defamatory meaning)
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (factors guiding sanctions assessment)
TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must relate to offensive conduct and not be excessive)
Kinney v. Barnes, 443 S.W.3d 87 (Tex. 2014) (injunctive relief and limits on remedies for defamation)
WFAA‑TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (defamation elements)
James v. Brown, 637 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1982) (judicial‑proceedings privilege applicable to communications in due course of judicial proceedings)