01-18-00990-CV
Tex. App.Jul 30, 2019Background
- 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)
