Murphy USA, Inc. and Mary Frances Maxwell, Mgr. v. Freddie J. Rose and Laureen Irving
12-15-00197-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- On Aug. 17, 2014, Freddie Rose pumped >$80 of gasoline at a Murphy USA station; his credit card and two checks were declined by the store’s electronic verification system and he returned to his vehicle.
- Store manager Mary Frances Maxwell believed Rose intended to drive off without paying, called police, printed a drive-off ticket, stood in front of Rose’s vehicle, identified him to officers, and signed a complaint; Rose was arrested and his car impounded; charges were later dropped.
- Rose and passenger Laureen Irving sued Murphy USA and Maxwell for malicious prosecution, defamation, false imprisonment, and negligence; they alleged the checks were actually supported by funds and Maxwell falsely accused Rose.
- Murphy and Maxwell moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA / anti‑SLAPP), claiming their report to police was protected petitioning activity; the trial court denied the motion and the defendants appealed.
- The Twelfth Court of Appeals held the TCPA applied to the claims and analyzed whether Rose and Irving had presented clear and specific evidence establishing a prima facie case for each claim; the court concluded they had not and dismissed the suit, remanding only for determination of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the TCPA applies to suit arising from report to police | Rose/Irving: reports to police are not constitutionally protected when later shown false | Murphy/Maxwell: reporting to police is petitioning activity protected by TCPA | TCPA applies — report to law enforcement is exercise of right to petition |
| Whether Rose/Irving showed prima facie malicious prosecution | Rose/Irving: Maxwell lacked probable cause; checks were actually supported by funds | Maxwell: she reasonably believed theft was occurring based on declined payments and conduct | No prima facie case — affidavits failed to rebut probable cause presumption |
| Whether Rose/Irving showed prima facie defamation | Rose/Irving: accusation of attempted theft was a false factual statement | Maxwell: statements were opinion based on observed facts and thus protected | No prima facie case — statements were opinion in context, not actionable facts |
| Whether Rose/Irving showed prima facie false imprisonment / negligence | Rose/Irving: Maxwell directed arrest and withheld verification info; owed duty to investigate | Maxwell: she had authority to detain and no duty to investigate a suspect’s alibi; negligence claim repackages malicious‑prosecution tort | No prima facie case — detention was authorized if she reasonably believed theft; negligence claim fails as it would subsume malicious prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (explains TCPA "clear and specific evidence" prima facie standard)
- Kroger Tex. Ltd. P’ship v. Suberu, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (elements of malicious prosecution and probable‑cause standard for citizen complainants)
- Molinet v. Kimbrell, 356 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2002) (elements of false imprisonment and scope of liability for those who request detention)
- Leyendecker & Assocs., Inc. v. Wechter, 683 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. 1984) (false statement charging a person with a crime is defamation per se)