United Food & Commercial Workers International Union v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
430 S.W.3d 508
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Wal‑Mart sued UFCW, OURWalmart, and related parties for repeated mass demonstrations on Wal‑Mart private property that blocked entrances, used bullhorns, carried signs, conducted in‑store flash mobs, and disrupted customers and employees.
- Wal‑Mart sent four cease‑and‑desist letters (2011–2013) revoking any permission for solicitation or demonstrations and posted no‑solicitation signs at stores.
- United Food (UFCW/OURWalmart, etc.) pleaded consent as an affirmative defense and moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their activities were protected speech/association and that they were invitees.
- Wal‑Mart submitted employee declarations, videos, property records, photos of signs, and the cease‑and‑desist letters to oppose dismissal and to show repeated unauthorized entries.
- The trial court denied the TCPA motion; United Food appealed interlocutorily. The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether United Food met the TCPA burdens and whether Wal‑Mart and United Food met their respective rebuttal/defense burdens.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wal‑Mart) | Defendant's Argument (United Food) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did United Food meet TCPA’s initial burden that suit was based on protected exercise? | N/A (court assumed movant met initial burden) | United Food argued demonstrations were protected speech/association under the TCPA | Court assumed United Food met the initial burden for purposes of appeal (so TCPA applies) |
| 2. Did Wal‑Mart establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie trespass? | Wal‑Mart argued entries were unauthorized because demonstrations exceeded invitee scope and cease‑and‑desist letters and signs revoked permission | United Food argued store openness conferred invitee status and permission to enter on every occasion | Court held Wal‑Mart met §27.005(c): clear and specific evidence of unauthorized physical entry (trespass) |
| 3. Did United Food prove consent defense by preponderance of the evidence? | Wal‑Mart argued any consent was limited to shopping; no evidence consented to demonstrations | United Food argued invitee status equaled permission to enter and demonstrate | Court held United Food failed §27.005(d): did not establish consent by preponderance; defense fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) (distributing handbills treated as protected First Amendment activity)
- Carlisle v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 152 S.W.2d 1073 (Tex. 1941) (invitee status determined by possessor’s words or conduct)
- Burton Constr. & Shipbuilding Co. v. Broussard, 273 S.W.2d 598 (Tex. 1954) (invitee who uses property for own venture loses invitee status and becomes trespasser)
- Cain v. Rust Indus. Cleaning Servs., 969 S.W.2d 464 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1998) (trespass requires unauthorized physical entry)
- R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Manziel, 361 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. 1962) (trespass principles)
- Mellon Mortgage Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654 (Tex. 1999) (consent can be manifested by owner’s conduct or condition of land)
- Harmon v. Gen. Motors Corp., 999 F.2d 964 (5th Cir. 1993) (use beyond permission can render invitee a trespasser)
Disposition
The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of United Food’s TCPA motion to dismiss, holding Wal‑Mart proved a prima facie trespass and United Food failed to prove consent; temporary appellate stay provisions were later dissolved as ordered.