Newspaper Holdings, Inc. v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, Ltd.
416 S.W.3d 71
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Defamation suit arising from Mineral Wells Index articles about the Crazy Water Retirement Hotel and its owner Miller.
- Defendants Patterson (Integra-Care), IntegraCare, and Newspaper Holdings, Inc. (NHI) move to dismiss under the TCPA.
- The trial court denied the TCPA motions; defendants appeal, asserting substantial truth, absence of prima facie case, and other defenses.
- Key article (Aug. 31, 2011) reported an ongoing investigation into Miller and the hotel; includes quotes from local officials.
- Index coverage described licensing and safety concerns under AFLA and related regulations; Patterson was a cited source for coverage.
- Court grants rehearing, joins issue of appellate jurisdiction, and reverses to dismiss under TCPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction and timing | Miller/Hotel argue no appellate jurisdiction. | Defendants contend no interlocutory appeal under TCPA §27.008. | Court has jurisdiction; motions denied by operation of law. |
| TCPA standard for dismissal (free speech and prima facie case) | Defendants must show statements were protected and plaintiffs fail to prove prima facie elements. | Defendants show protected speech and lack of prima facie case against them. | Defendants satisfied TCPA burden; plaintiffs failed to prove essential elements. |
| Substantial truth defense (NHI) post Neely v. Wilson | Truth of statements should defeat defamation claim. | Substantial truth defense supported by record; inaccuracies do not negate truth of overall gist. | Substantial truth defense valid; statements not proven false to sustain defamation claim. |
| Commercial speech exemption under TCPA | Hotel claims statements arose from commercial transactions and target buyers. | Speech concerned public health/safety; not commercial speech directed to buyers. | Exemption not satisfied; claims against IntegraCare and NHI dismissed; case remanded for dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (de novo review for standard of TCPA analysis)
- WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. 1998) (defamation fault standard for private plaintiffs)
- McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14 (Tex. 1990) (substantial truth framework for defamation)
- Turner v. KTRK Tel., Inc., 38 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. 2000) (substantial truth precludes liability for noise in details)
- Langston v. Eagle Printing Co., 797 S.W.2d 66 (Tex. App.—Waco 1990) (substantially true despite exaggeration)
- Miranda v. Byles, 390 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (public-figure defamation burden and falsehood allocation context)
- Neely v. Wilson, 418 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2013) (clarified substantial truth defense for media reporting of allegations)
- Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore, 49 Cal.4th 12 (Cal. 2010) (four-factor analysis for commercial speech exemption (California analogy))