Weber v. Fernandez
No. 02-18-00275-CV, 2019 WL 1395796 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)
A public figure called a robber, an anti-SLAPP motion, an unpublished opinion
- In one lineEn una línea
- In a TCPA appeal, a public figure had to show clear and specific evidence for each claim; statements calling him a robber were the core dispute.En una apelación bajo la TCPA, el tribunal midió los reclamos de una figura pública con el estándar de prueba clara y específica, tratando las afirmaciones de que era un ladrón como el centro del pleito.
- RuleRegla
- Once the TCPA applies, the plaintiff must establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each element of each claim; for a public-figure plaintiff that includes falsity and actual malice, and claims that merely repackage the defamation injury under another label do not survive. (Verify the court's treatment of each claim in the opinion.)
- Why this case is herePor qué está aquí este caso
- On the professor's list for two reasons: it is a current Fort Worth application of the TCPA framework to defamation-type claims, and it is the one case on the list that must be cited as an unpublished opinion with a Westlaw identifier and a full date.
- Procedural posturePostura procesal
- Appeal from the 48th District Court of Tarrant County after the trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act; the court of appeals, in a memorandum opinion with a partial concurrence and dissent, reviewed whether the plaintiff had shown a prima facie case for his claims, including defamation.
Facts
The plaintiff, treated by the court as a public figure, sued several individuals over communications that, among other things, called him a robber. The defendants invoked the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which protects speech on matters of public concern by requiring early dismissal unless the plaintiff produces clear and specific evidence of each element of his claims.
Procedural posture
The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; the defendants appealed. The court of appeals issued a memorandum opinion, with one justice concurring in part and dissenting in part on which communications were supported by sufficient evidence of falsity and actual malice.
Issue
Whether the plaintiff presented clear and specific evidence of a prima facie case on each challenged claim.
Holding
In part. The concurrence agreed that the plaintiff was a public figure, that the TCPA applied, and that there was clear and specific evidence that the statements calling him a robber were false, while disagreeing with the majority about other communications. (Read the majority opinion for the disposition of each claim, including any IIED claim.)
Reasoning
The TCPA framework: step one, the movant shows the statute applies; step two, the nonmovant must show a prima facie case by clear and specific evidence; a public figure must also show actual malice. Verify how the court treated any claim pleaded alongside defamation.
Rule (own words)
In Texas, a reputational claim against speech on a public matter has to show its evidence at the door, element by element, and a second tort pleaded for the same injury will be measured the same way.
Likely follow-upsRepreguntas probables
What is the one thing to get right when citing this case?
Why does the TCPA matter for an IIED memo?
Say the answer out loud before revealing each part. Rate yourself honestly; the case comes back sooner when you miss.Di la respuesta en voz alta antes de revelar cada parte. Califícate con honestidad; el caso vuelve antes si fallas.
Panic kit: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”Kit de pánico: “Could you repeat the question, please?” · “Let me make sure I have the facts right: …” · “I'm not certain, but I'd argue … because …”