Levi Morin v. Law Office of Kleinhans Gruber, PLLC
03-15-00174-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 2, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Law Office of Kleinhans Gruber, PLLC sued defendant Levi Morin for defamation, defamation per se, business disparagement and sought injunctive relief based on a June 24, 2014 Yelp posting. Morin is the defendant and filed a TCPA (Texas Citizens Participation Act) motion to dismiss.
- Citation and original petition were served on Morin on September 30, 2014. Morin filed a TCPA motion initially on December 1, 2014 (submitted without exhibits/affidavits) and refiled with exhibits on December 3, 2014.
- Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§27.003–27.005, a motion to dismiss under the TCPA must be filed by the 60th day after service and a hearing must be set not later than the 60th day (with narrow exceptions that can extend hearing up to 90 days on good cause/agreement/docket conditions).
- The district court found Morin missed the statutory deadlines: it found no good cause to extend the filing deadline, found Morin did not set the hearing within 60 days (nor met exceptions), struck exhibits filed after the deadline, overruled certain objections, found plaintiff established prima facie claims, and denied Morin’s TCPA motion. Those rulings were signed in amended order(s) rendered March 5 and signed March 26, 2015.
- Morin filed a Notice of Appeal on March 6, 2015 and then sought an extension time to file the appeal. Plaintiff (the appellee here) moved the appellate court to deny Morin’s Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Appeal and to dismiss the appeal as untimely, arguing the TCPA motion was deemed denied by operation of law as of the January 30, 2015 hearing deadline, so the 20-day accelerated appeal clock ran and the 15-day extension period to seek an appellate extension expired March 6, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held / District Court Ruling |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of TCPA motion filing and exhibits | Morin missed the 60-day filing requirement (filed exhibits late); exhibits filed Dec. 3 were untimely and should be struck | Morin contends filings (as refiled Dec. 3) preserve his TCPA rights and that court retained discretion to hear motion within statutory window | District court found no good cause to extend the filing deadline, struck exhibits filed after deadline, and treated the TCPA motion as untimely when filed with exhibits on Dec. 3 |
| Compliance with TCPA hearing deadlines (60/90 days) | No hearing was held on or before the 60th day (Jan. 30, 2015); no finding of good cause, no party agreement; hearing occurred after statutory period (counted as Day 97) so court lacked jurisdiction to extend | Morin argues district court retained discretion to hear motion if hearing commenced within 90-day outer limit | District court found Morin did not set hearing within 60 days and did not meet exceptions; court denied good cause; appellee contends hearing commenced after the 90th day; district court nonetheless conducted hearing March 5 and issued rulings but also signed amended orders finding no good cause |
| Effect of operation-of-law denial under TCPA on appellate deadlines | If the court does not rule within TCPA time, motion is deemed denied by operation of law and the moving party’s appeal window commences; Morin’s appeal window expired (20 days) and his time to move for extension (additional 15 days) ran March 6, 2015 | Morin argues grounds exist to extend time or that appellate deadlines should be measured from district court’s signed order date (March 26 amended order) | Appellee argues (and district court found) no good-cause extension existed; appellee asks appellate court to find it lacks jurisdiction because Morin’s notice and extension motion were untimely under the TCPA timetable; appellate court decision on dismissal not included in record provided |
| Entitlement to discovery/continuance and sanctions | Plaintiff sought to strike TCPA setting for delay, sought nonsuit or continuance, and sought sanctions/fees for discovery delays and alleged dilatory conduct by Morin | Morin argued discovery stays/protections under TCPA and disputed plaintiff’s characterization of delay; defense framed discovery as unnecessary pre-dismissal | District court denied Morin’s TCPA motion on merits (found plaintiff established prima facie case) and plaintiff sought sanctions and requested discovery/continuance in the alternative; district-court order overruled certain objections and denied TCPA motion; court did not grant continuance as to the TCPA timetable |
Key Cases Cited
- Sutherland v. Spencer, 376 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. 2012) (Texas Supreme Court guidance on default and the preference for adjudication on the merits when no conscious indifference to deadlines)
- Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Chem. Lime, Ltd., 291 S.W.3d 392 (Tex. 2009) (Texas Supreme Court on enforcing filing deadlines and the importance of strict deadline rules)
- United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (U.S. 1985) (Supreme Court discussion cited for principle that filing deadlines operate harshly but must be enforced to preserve orderly process)