History
  • No items yet
midpage
01-18-00990-CV
Tex. App.
Jul 30, 2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Peggy Pierce was COO/administrator of Fondren Orthopedic Group (FOG) and handled business for FOG and related entity FOLTD; she also advised Dr. Gregory Stocks financially.
  • After refusing partner requests for financial information, FOG investigated, placed Pierce on leave (Feb 8, 2018), and later terminated her.
  • Pierce filed discrimination and retaliation claims with TWC/EEOC and then sued FOG and FOLTD in federal court (May 23, 2018). FOG/FOLTD answered and asserted counterclaims. Stocks was not a party to that federal suit.
  • Stocks separately sued Pierce (June 21, 2018) for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud based on alleged financial misconduct predating Pierce’s federal suit.
  • Pierce moved to dismiss Stocks’s suit under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), attaching declarations (including mediation statements); Stocks objected and the trial court struck those declarations and denied dismissal. Pierce appealed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Pierce) Defendant's Argument (Stocks) Held
Whether Stocks’s suit is a “legal action” related to Pierce’s exercise of the right to petition under the TCPA Stocks’s suit was filed in response to Pierce’s federal lawsuit and thus relates to her exercise of the right to petition; mediation statements and timing show retaliatory motive Stocks argued Pierce failed to prove the TCPA applies and that he presented clear, specific prima facie proof of his claims; he objected to Pierce’s mediation-based evidence Court held Pierce failed to show by preponderance that Stocks’s suit relates to or was in response to her federal suit; TCPA dismissal denied
Admissibility of mediation statements offered to show Stocks’s motive Mediation statements (Pierce and husband declarations) are admissible as an exception to the confidentiality privilege because they show motive and are discoverable independent of mediation Stocks argued the mediation privilege bars those statements; he noted they are hearsay and were not made by him or at a mediation he attended Court sustained objections and struck the declarations; mediation confidentiality and hearsay concerns barred that evidence
Whether temporal sequence (Stocks sued after Pierce) establishes TCPA coverage Timing alone shows Stocks acted in response to Pierce’s petition Timing insufficient; many reasons exist for filing later; prior conduct predating Pierce’s suit undermines causal inference Court held temporal proximity alone did not meet Pierce’s preponderance burden
Whether the pleadings (without mediation evidence) show TCPA applicability The pleadings involve the same employment context and thus Stocks’s claims relate to Pierce’s federal suit Stocks argued his claims arise from distinct alleged financial harm and are not claims about the employment-discrimination litigation Court held pleadings, viewed favorably to Stocks, did not show the claims were related for TCPA purposes

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Lipsky, 411 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (TCPA is an anti‑SLAPP statute and creates early dismissal mechanism)
  • KTRK Television, Inc. v. Robinson, 409 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (statute construed liberally; discusses TCPA burdens)
  • Robinson v. Newspaper Holdings, Inc., 416 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant when deciding TCPA motion)
  • Serafine v. Blunt, 466 S.W.3d 352 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015) (de novo review of whether nonmovant presented clear and specific evidence)
  • Allison v. Fire Ins. Exch., 98 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (strong protection of mediation confidentiality)
  • Hydroscience Techs., Inc. v. Hydroscience, Inc., 401 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (mediation privilege bars admission of settlement communications)
  • Beving v. Beadles, 563 S.W.3d 399 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2018) (temporal sequence alone insufficient to prove TCPA response relationship)
  • Cavin v. Abbott, 545 S.W.3d 47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017) (discusses when claims may be considered as reacting to petitioning activity)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Peggy Pierce v. Gregory Stocks, MD
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Jul 30, 2019
Citation: 01-18-00990-CV
Docket Number: 01-18-00990-CV
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
Log In
    Peggy Pierce v. Gregory Stocks, MD, 01-18-00990-CV