Background

Trivista Oil Company LLC and Trivista Operating LLC, oil and gas operators in Bastrop County, brought suit against Fort Apache Energy, Inc. in the 423rd District Court alleging tortious interference with contract, seeking declaratory judgment, and asserting trespass to try title claims. The dispute arose after Fort Apache contacted an undetermined number of landowners who had existing mineral leases with Trivista—so-called "bottom leases"—in an effort to convince them to sign top leases with Fort Apache or, in at least one instance, to terminate their existing lease with Trivista outright. A top lease is a future interest in a mineral estate that takes effect only once the prior bottom lease terminates.

The District Court's Ruling

Fort Apache moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), Texas's anti-SLAPP statute designed to protect speech on matters of public concern through early and expedited review of claims that seek to stifle speech through civil liability. The 423rd District Court, with Judge Christopher Darrow Duggan presiding, granted Fort Apache's motion, dismissing all of Trivista's claims with prejudice, awarding Fort Apache $5,000 in costs and attorney's fees, and imposing an additional $5,000 sanction on Trivista. Fort Apache subsequently filed a motion to modify the judgment seeking increased fees and sanctions, but that motion was not set for hearing within the trial court's plenary power period and was overruled by operation of law. Both parties appealed.

The Court of Appeals' Analysis

Writing for the Austin Court of Appeals, Justice Theofanis applied the three-step TCPA analysis. First, the court determined that Trivista's claims—including the trespass to try title and declaratory judgment claims—were "inextricably intertwined" with Fort Apache's communications to landowners, which constituted exercise of the right of free speech under the TCPA.

Second, and most significantly, the court held that Fort Apache's communications were "in connection with a 'matter of public concern'" under the TCPA. The court rejected Trivista's argument that these were merely private contract disputes with a limited business audience.

Third, the court held that the commercial-speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply to preclude dismissal of Trivista's claims.

Outcome

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of all claims. However, the court declined to remand to the trial court to allow Fort Apache to present additional evidence on the amount of attorney's fees it incurred in defending against the action. Both the trial court's dismissal with prejudice and its award of $5,000 in costs and fees plus $5,000 in sanctions were upheld.