Michael O. Pickens v. Elizabeth Cordia
433 S.W.3d 179
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Michael Pickens (defendant) authored a personal blog about his addiction and recovery that included critical statements about his father (T. Boone Pickens Jr.) and siblings. Appellees are his father and siblings; Pamela also alleged a computer-related claim.
- Appellees sued for public disclosure of private facts, defamation, statutory libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; Pamela added a harmful-access-by-computer claim under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 143.001.
- Michael moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing his blog posts constituted protected speech on matters of public concern.
- The trial court granted dismissal only as to Pamela’s harmful-access-by-computer claim and denied dismissal of the other claims; both sides appealed (interlocutory).
- The court of appeals considered (1) whether the TCPA applied (i.e., whether the speech concerned a matter of public concern or public figures), (2) whether appellees established prima facie claims, and (3) the propriety of dismissing Pamela’s computer claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does TCPA apply because the blog addresses a matter of public concern (health/safety, community well-being)? | Pickens’s family claims arise from private, false statements; TCPA should not bar their claims. | Michael: blog discusses addiction, parental abuse, family dynamics — matters of public concern protected by TCPA. | Held: TCPA does not apply — blog is a personal account focused on defendant, not a public-issue communication. Motion denied as to defamation/privacy/IIED. |
| Are T. Boone Pickens Jr. and Thomas Pickens III public figures such that posts about them are matters of public concern? | Appellees: they are private individuals for purposes of this controversy. | Michael: T. Boone (and Thomas) are public figures (general or limited) based on public prominence and media coverage. | Held: Michael failed to show public-figure status. Evidence insufficient for general-purpose; at best T. Boone might be limited-purpose (energy issues), but unrelated to these posts. |
| Was Pamela’s harmful-access-by-computer claim properly dismissed under TCPA? | Pamela: the claim arises from an email she believes was sent by a third-party alias; Michael denied sending it, so TCPA doesn’t apply. | Michael: TCPA protects speech and some dismissal was appropriate; dismissal was harmless given limited discovery. | Held: Reversed dismissal. Because Michael denied sending the email, the TCPA did not encompass the claim and Pamela must be allowed discovery to prove sender identity. Remanded for further proceedings. |
| Does this court have jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal of a TCPA denial? | Appellees contested jurisdiction. | Michael relied on appellate review of TCPA motions. | Held: Court has jurisdiction. The 2013 amendment to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 and prior appellate precedent permit interlocutory review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Dallas, Inc. v. BH DFW, Inc., 402 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (discussing appellate jurisdiction over TCPA interlocutory appeals)
- Miranda v. Byles, 390 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (distinguishing private facts from public issues for privacy/defamation claims)
- WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (public-figure framework in defamation law)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (U.S. 1974) (limits on public-figure designation; distinction between general- and limited-purpose public figures)
- Waldbaum v. Fairchild Publ’ns, Inc., 627 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (discussion of general-purpose public-figure concept)
- Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (en banc) (analysis of public-figure status and limited vs. general public-figure tests)