Texas Campaign for the Environment and Robin Schneider v. Partners Dewatering International, LLC
13-14-00656-CV
Tex. App.Feb 23, 2015Background
- Interlocutory appeal before the 13th Court of Appeals from a Cameron County TCPA dismissal in Partners Dewatering Intl., LLC v. Texas Campaign for the Environment & Schneider.
- Plaintiffs/Appellants allege tortious interference with contract and business disparagement against Partners’ conduct and statements by TCE and Schneider.
- Texas Campaign for the Environment defended on truth/substantial truth and privilege, asserting the evidence supports dismissal under the TCPA.
- Court addresses whether Partners can meet the “clear and specific evidence” standard under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §27.005(c) to avoid dismissal.
- Court analyzes whether the record shows proximate causation and damages, and whether the statements are protected by privilege or are true/substantially true.
- Court ultimately reverses/permits dismissal, granting dismissal with prejudice and costs to TCE on both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Partners proved clear and specific evidence for each element of tortious interference | Partners failed burden; seeks evidence showing causation | Court should dismiss for lack of clear and specific evidence | Dismissed; failure to meet elevated standard for each element |
| Whether Partners proved false statements for business disparagement or established malice | Statements were false and made with malice | Statements true or substantially true; malice not proven | Dismissed; truth/substantial truth defense established; malice not proven |
| Whether Partners proved proximate causation linking TCE statements to Rio Hondo contract termination | Online posts and City Attorney statement show proximate cause | Evidence shows public pressure and administrative changes caused termination; no proximate causation from posts | Dismissed for lack of proximate causation; City changes independent of posts |
| Whether privilege or defamation defenses bar recovery | No applicable privilege prevents liability | Qualified privilege applies; malice not shown to defeat privilege | Privilege not defeated; claims dismissed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner, 106 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2003) (courts may not infer liability from mere circumstantial evidence; need clear proof of causation/damages)
- Hurlbut v. Gulf Atl. Life Ins. Co., 749 S.W.2d 762 (Tex. 1987) (truth is a defense to business disparagement; falsity must be proven by plaintiff)
- Burbage v. Burbage, 447 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (damages and causation require more than speculative inferences; heightened standard under TCPA)
- In re E.I. DuPont, 136 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. 2004) (clarity of evidence required; supports elevated standard under TCPA)