Tom Retzlaff v. Go America Communications Corporation, Aaron David Dubrinski, and John and/or Jane Doe, 356 S.W.3d 689

Background

Retzlaff sued GoAmerica Communications Corp. in propria persona for a profane night call, asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence; Doe defendants were not served.
GoAmerica moved to declare Retzlaff a vexatious litigant; motion served by fax June 24, 2008, prompting Retzlaff to threaten further litigation.
On June 26, 2008 the court entered an order staying the case and enjoining Retzlaff from filing without permission and from approaching certain GoAmerica personnel and offices; order gave no termination date.
A June 27 hearing was held; Retzlaff contended he had not received full notice; the court allowed expedited presentation but reconvened June 30 for Retzlaff to present evidence.
By August 22, 2008 the judge found Retzlaff vexatious and required $12,500 security; by October 15, 2008 a formal order followed; November 24, 2008 Retzlaff moved to dismiss without prejudice for security failure.
Court ultimately dismissed the suit with prejudice as to all defendants but GoAmerica, vacated the June 26 injunctions, and remanded for disposition of remaining defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the June 26 ex parte hearing notice and order proper?	Retzlaff contends notice was ex parte and inadequate.	GoAmerica argues it was scheduling-related and not merits-based.	Second issue sustained; ex parte notice/requirements not properly followed; injunction void.
Were the June 26 injunctions valid and properly issued under rules on temporary restraining orders?	Injunctions impeded rights without proper procedural safeguards.	Prophylactic measures were warranted due to threats and vexatious conduct.	Injunctions void; order vacated; mooted to extent of future filing prohibition.
Did the trial court properly find Retzlaff a vexatious litigant under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.054?	Retzlaff repeatedly filed baseless actions in various courts.	GoAmerica proved a history of frivolous litigation and lack of probable merit.	Vexatious finding sustained in part; court properly evaluated prior cases and lack of merit.
Was dismissal with prejudice proper for Retzlaff as to all defendants?	Security nonpayment supports dismissal with prejudice only against moving defendant.	Defendant sought dismissal as to all defendants, arguing security terms applied.	Dismissal with prejudice upheld for GoAmerica; other defendants remanded due to standing gaps.
Do constitutional challenges to the vexatious-litigant statutes have merit?	Statutes vague, overbroad, infringe access to courts and First/Texas constitutional rights.	Statutes reasonably regulate access without abridging rights; prior restraint justified.	Statutes pass as-applied rational basis scrutiny; rights violation claims rejected.

Key Cases Cited

In re Office of the Attorney Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. 2008) (procedural due process and ex parte notice standards in state practice)
Barnes v. Whittington, 751 S.W.2d 493 (Tex. 1988) (ex parte communications allowed only in extraordinary emergencies)
Sweed v. Nye, 319 S.W.3d 791 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2010) (balancing rights of access to courts with protection from abusive litigation)
Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholds reasonable-probability standard in vexatious-litigant statutes)
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Baker, 838 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1992) (principles on freedom of expression related to litigation restrictions)
Leonard v. Abbott, 171 S.W.3d 451 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005) (equal-protection considerations in vexatious-litigant contexts)