Page 25 - San Antonio Vol 1 No 2
P. 25

uitable relief.” Id. at 226. ABT argued, among other things, that the TCPA applied only to communications that are analogous to participating in gov- ernment or related to the public inter- est. Id. at 228. Acknowledging that the TCPA requires actions regarding the “right of free speech” to be in connec- tion with a matter of public concern, the majority determined that there was no similar requirement for ac- tions regarding the “exercise of the right to petition.” Id. at 228.
In addition to having its claim for sanctions dismissed, ABT was charged with paying Hawxhurst’s attorney’s fees. Citing the Texas Su- preme Court’s decision in Sullivan v. Abraham, 488 S.W.3d 294 (Tex. 2016) that upon dismissal under the TCPA an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses is mandatory to the suc- cessful party, the court remanded the
case to the trial court for further pro- ceedings to determine the amount of such award. Id.
Justice Pemberton  led a dissent- ing opinion, adding to his prior pleas in Sera ne and other cases for TCPA reform. Justice Pemberton lamented that the TCPA no longer maintained the balance between its stated goal to “protect the rights of a person to  le meritorious lawsuits” and the rules that permit sanctions for frivolous  lings, but instead had turned into a “weapon against weapons.” Id. at 233. Justice Pemberton warned courts not to read “the Act super cially in a mis- taken perception of plain-meaning textualism.” Id. Without injecting necessary and logical context, a literal reading of the TCPA would extend to a lawyer’s pet were it “humorously named ‘Lawsuit.’” Id. at 234. Imply- ing that the majority’s holding yielded
similar unintended results, Justice Pemberton observed that litigants will now be able to the use the TCPA to defeat relief sought under “[p]reex- isting statutes and rules authorizing sanctions for litigation abuse—the same basic goal of the TCPA.” Id. at 235.
Justice Pemberton has been joined by a growing chorus calling for TCPA reform. Until that call is answered, by clear direction from the Supreme Court or by the legislature, litigators need to be aware of the burgeoning number of opinions that threaten to turn the TCPA into an all-purpose “weapon against weapons.” If the Hawxhurst decision is a bellwether, the TCPA may be dangerously close to reducing the available sanctions for frivolous  lings to a mere “SLAPP” on the wrist.
The TCPA allows a motion to dismiss a “legal action” that is based on, relates to, or is in response to the party’s exercise of the right to free speech, right to petition, or right of association.
25


































































































   23   24   25   26   27