Revenew International LLC v. PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP, 01-15-00320-CV

Background

Appellee PSC moved to dismiss Revenew’s interlocutory appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(6).
Section 51.014(a)(6) permits interlocutory appeals only by (1) members of the electronic or print media acting in that capacity, or (2) persons whose communication "appears in or is published by the electronic or print media."
Revenew (a contract‑compliance audit firm) concedes it is not a member of the media and relies on the second prong, arguing its communications appeared in electronic or print form.
PSC contends the statutory phrase requires publication by the news media (e.g., newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, books) and that Revenew produced no evidence its statements were so published; the disputed communications were private emails/letters/conversations.
PSC asks the court to dismiss the appeal, award appellate fees and costs, and impose sanctions under Tex. R. App. P. 45 for a frivolous appeal contrary to this Court’s precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Revenew)	Defendant's Argument (PSC)	Held / Ruling (as urged by PSC / supported by precedent)
Whether § 51.014(a)(6)’s second prong covers any communication that "appears in electronic or print form"	Broad reading: any recorded or electronic communication (emails, texts, printed pages) suffices	Narrow reading: second prong requires appearance/publishing by the electronic or print media (news media/traditional publications)	Court should adopt narrow reading and find no jurisdiction absent evidence of publication in the media (per SEIU Local 5)
Which party bears the burden to prove jurisdictional facts	Revenew: implies PSC must disprove publication outside private communications	PSC: appellant bears burden to show its communications appeared in the media	Appellant must prove the communications were published in the media; Revenew failed to do so
Whether cited authorities support Revenew’s expansive interpretation	Revenew cites cases and legislative history to broaden "media"	PSC argues the cases (e.g., Main, Astoria) do not support the expansive reading and, where applied, involve traditional media publications	Precedent supports PSC’s view that § 51.014(a)(6) targets traditional media publication; Revenew’s cited cases do not change that result
Whether sanctions are warranted for filing a frivolous interlocutory appeal	Revenew maintains its interpretation has merit	PSC contends the appeal is frivolous given controlling precedent (SEIU Local 5) and lack of record evidence; requests appellate fees and Rule 45 sanctions	PSC urges sanctions and fees; court should award them given alleged disregard of settled law and failure to cite record evidence

Key Cases Cited

Serv. Emps. Int’l Union Local 5 v. Prof’l Janitorial Serv. of Houston, Inc., 415 S.W.3d 387 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (interpreting § 51.014(a)(6) to require traditional media publication for non‑media persons to obtain interlocutory appeal)
Main v. Royall, 348 S.W.3d 381 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (discussing legislative history and holding authors/publishers of traditional books qualify as members of the print media)
Astoria Indus. of Iowa v. SNF, Inc., 223 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (addressing free‑speech defense where statements were published in an industry trade journal)
State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279 (Tex. 2006) (statutory‑construction principles: give effect to all words of a statute)
TGS‑NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (interpret statutes as a whole and apply contextual meaning)
Quebe v. Pope, 201 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (appellant’s burden to demonstrate record supports interlocutory appeal jurisdictional claims)
Casteel‑Diebolt v. Diebolt, 912 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) (appellate burden to reference record accurately to support claims)
Bradt v. West, 892 S.W.2d 56 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (awarding sanctions where party disregards settled law)
Elm Creek Villas Homeowner Ass’n v. Beldon Roofing & Remodeling Co., 940 S.W.2d 150 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996) (sanctions may follow frivolous interlocutory appeals)
Texas Dept. of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2004) (statutory interpretation must give meaning to the statute’s terms)