Virgilio Avila and Univision Television Group, Inc. v. F.B. Larrea
506 S.W.3d 490
Tex. App.2015Background
- Larrea sued Univision and reporter Virgilio Avila for defamation based on two broadcasts and website content; defendants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).
- The trial court allowed limited discovery and continued the TCPA hearing; defendants appealed interlocutorily and this Court (Avila I) reversed, rendering dismissal under the TCPA and remanding for consideration of damages and costs under TCPA §27.009(a).
- On remand defendants moved for attorney’s fees, expenses, and sanctions under TCPA §27.009(a); the trial court taxed court costs against Larrea but denied fees, expenses, and sanctions.
- Defendants appealed the denial of fees/expenses/sanctions; this Court reviewed whether awards under §27.009(a)(1) and (2) are mandatory and whether denying fees was an abuse of discretion.
- The Court held that a successful TCPA movant is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses supported by evidence, though the trial court may reduce the amount as "justice and equity" require; it reversed the denial of fees/expenses and remanded for an award, but affirmed denial of sanctions (which defendants waived).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Larrea) | Defendant's Argument (Avila / Univision) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §27.009(a)(1) entitles a successful TCPA movant to mandatory attorney’s fees and expenses | Section’s "as justice and equity may require" gives trial court discretion to deny fees | statute’s "shall award" language requires awarding reasonable fees supported by evidence | Fees/expenses are mandatory when supported by evidence; trial court must award reasonable amount subject to equity adjustments |
| Whether trial court abused its discretion by awarding $0 when movants presented uncontroverted evidence of fees/expenses | Denial appropriate based on equity, docket, and case circumstances | Movants presented billing records, testimony, and no contrary evidence; denial of all fees was an abuse | Reversed: awarding zero despite supported evidence was an abuse; remand to determine reasonable fee/expense award under §27.009(a)(1) |
| Whether sanctions under §27.009(a)(2) are mandatory and whether trial court erred in denying sanctions | Argued trial court proper to deny (or that sanctions discretionary) | Sought sanctions to deter similar suits | Defendants waived sanctions on appeal; Court affirmed denial and did not decide whether sanctions are mandatory |
Key Cases Cited
- Avila v. Larrea, 394 S.W.3d 646 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (interlocutory appeal reversing denial of TCPA dismissal and remanding for damages/costs)
- Cruz v. Van Sickle, 452 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (holding §27.009(a)(1) entitles successful movant to attorney’s fees supported by the evidence)
- Schimmel v. McGregor, 438 S.W.3d 847 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (concluding award of fees/expenses mandatory under §27.009(a)(1))
- Sierra Club v. Andrews County, 418 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2013) (same conclusion regarding mandatory fees under TCPA)
- Fitzmaurice v. Jones, 417 S.W.3d 627 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (trial court erred by not awarding reasonable fees under §27.009(a))
- Ridge Oil Co. v. Guinn Investments, Inc., 148 S.W.3d 143 (Tex. 2004) (standard: trial court discretion in fixing reasonable attorney’s fees)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (amount of equitable fee award is question of law committed to trial court discretion)