Background - Dr. Nadeem Khan (private physician/businessman) sued neighbor Kathryn Van Der Linden for tortious interference (contract and prospective business relations) and defamation/defamation per se after Van Der Linden privately messaged Khan’s business associates on Facebook Messenger that Khan had told her he had given money to the Taliban. - Van Der Linden claimed the message concerned public safety/community well-being and moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The trial court denied the motion; Van Der Linden appealed interlocutorily under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(12). - Van Der Linden’s Message was sent privately to identified business associates (via Facebook Messenger); Khan alleges the Message caused deals (an oil sale commission and a WHAM, LLC purchase) to fail and seeks damages and injunctive relief. - The TCPA two-step burden: movant must show the lawsuit is based on/related to an exercise of free speech; if so, plaintiff must then establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each element of the claims. The court reviews de novo. - The court held the Message was an exercise of free speech on a matter of public concern (terrorist funding implicates safety/community well-being), so TCPA applied; it then examined whether Khan met the TCPA’s clear-and-specific evidentiary burden for each claim. - Ruling: the court affirmed denial of dismissal as to defamation/defamation per se (Khan met the clear-and-specific standard for falsity and fault under the case’s limited two-party-conversation facts), but reversed and rendered dismissal of the tortious-interference-with-contract and tortious-interference-with-prospective-relations claims for failure to produce clear-and-specific evidence of contract, breach, causation, and damages. The case was remanded to determine fees under §27.009 for the dismissed claims. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Khan) | Defendant's Argument (Van Der Linden) | Held | |---|---:|---|---:| | Whether TCPA applies (exercise of free speech on matter of public concern) | Khan: TCPA policy inapplicable because suit seeks to vindicate meritorious business-interference claims, not to chill speech | Van Der Linden: Message concerns public safety/community well‑being (terrorist funding) and thus is protected speech | Held: TCPA applies — Message was a communication on a matter of public concern (sustained for Van Der Linden) | | Tortious interference with contract — existence, breach, proximate cause, damages | Khan: Had oral agreement(s) and the Message caused Sheldon Murphy to refuse performance, causing financial loss | Van Der Linden: Khan produced only vague testimony and speculation; no clear contract, breach, causation, or specific damages | Held: Reversed — Khan failed to present clear and specific evidence of a valid contract, breach, causation, and damages; dismissal required | | Tortious interference with prospective business relations — reasonable probability, wrongful act, intent, damages | Khan: Had a reasonable probability of closing a WHAM deal; Van Der Linden’s message wrongfully prevented the relationship; lost substantial profits | Van Der Linden: Evidence is temporal coincidence and conclusory profit estimates; insufficient proof of causation or demonstrable damages | Held: Reversed — Khan failed to provide clear and specific evidence of causation and actual damages; dismissal required | | Defamation / defamation per se — falsity, fault degree | Khan: Message falsely attributed to him; he denied making the statements and therefore met clear-and-specific proof of falsity and (given only two parties to the conversation) of knowledge/negligence | Van Der Linden: She truthfully reported that Khan ‘‘told [her] personally’’ he gave money to the Taliban; she raised truth/justification as an affirmative defense | Held: Affirmed — Khan met his TCPA burden on falsity and requisite fault (under these facts); defamation/defamation per se claim survives TCPA dismissal | ### Key Cases Cited In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (explaining TCPA two-step burden and requiring "clear and specific evidence" to defeat dismissal) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1964) (shifted burden to plaintiff to prove falsity in cases implicating First Amendment matters) D Magazine Partners, L.P. v. Rosenthal, 529 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. 2017) (on matters of public concern falsity is an element the plaintiff must prove; truth is not an affirmative defense at TCPA stage in such contexts) Alex Sheshunoff Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Johnson, 209 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. 2006) (statutory interpretation principles; plain-language analysis) Janvey v. Golf Channel, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. 2016) (statutory construction; legislative intent found in plain language) Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (elements of tortious interference with contract) * Lipsky (damages/defamation discussion cited for evidentiary standard) 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (clear-and-specific proof required for damages and other defamation elements)