| Subgrades | |
| Covered Speech: | A- |
| Anti-SLAPP Protections: | A |
| Subscores | |
| Covered Speech: | 90 out of 100 points |
| Anti-SLAPP Protections: | 96 out of 100 points |
| Detailed Scoring on Anti-SLAPP Protections | |
| Suspension of Court Proceedings Upon an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 18 of 20 points |
| Burden of Proof on Plaintiff to Defeat an Anti-SLAPP Motion: | 12 of 12 points |
| Right to an Immediate Appeal: | 25 of 25 points |
| Award of Costs and Attorney Fees: | 38 of 40 points |
| Expansive Statutory Interpretation Instruction to Courts: | 3 of 3 points |
State Anti-SLAPP Statute
Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute[1] protects the exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, and the right to association, as well as the exercise of various kinds of communication generally; the statute defines those terms broadly and extensively. However, the statute also carves out several content-related exemptions from the broad principles stated above, such as those related to selling or leasing goods and services. Although discovery is suspended once an anti-SLAPP motion is filed, a court may nonetheless order specified discovery to be conducted if good cause is shown. To prevail against an anti-SLAPP motion, the respondent must show by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim. The anti-SLAPP statute provides for an interlocutory appeal of an order on an anti-SLAPP motion; if a court does not rule on the motion by a specified deadline, the statute treats this inaction as a denial of the motion, which itself triggers the right to an interlocutory appeal. A court must award costs and attorney fees to the prevailing movant on an anti-SLAPP motion; conversely, if the court finds that the motion is frivolous or solely intended to delay, it may award costs and attorney fees to the respondent. In general, the statute instructs courts that its language “shall be construed liberally to effectuate its purpose and intent.”[2]
[1] Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001 through § 27.011.
[2] The current relevant case law on the fees element in the event of a voluntary dismissal under the TCPA is as follows: Galleria Loop Note Holder, LLC v. Lee, No. 13-20-00334-CV, 2021 WL 2694773, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 1, 2021, no pet.) (“TCPA motions to dismiss survive nonsuit because, unlike a nonsuit, the TCPA motion to dismiss might also allow the movant to obtain a dismissal with prejudice, attorney’s fees, or sanctions.”) (quoting Kocaoglan v. Law Office of Chris Sanchez, P.C., No. 13-19-00596-CV, 2021 WL 161395, at *4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 14, 2021, pet. denied)); Gaskamp v. WSP USA, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 457 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. dism’d); Am. Heritage Capital, LP v. Gonzalez, 436 S.W.3d 865, 871 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, no pet.) (affirming the trial court’s award of $15,616 in fees and $15,000 in sanctions ordered after nonsuit); see also Breitling Oil & Gas Corp. v. Petrol. Newspapers of Alaska, LLC, No. 05-14-00299-CV, 2015 WL 1519667, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 1, 2015, pet. denied).
