Background and Procedural Posture

Trivista Oil Company LLC and Trivista Operating LLC (collectively, "Trivista") brought suit in the 423rd District Court of Bastrop County against Fort Apache Energy, Inc. alleging tortious interference with contract, trespass to try title, and seeking declaratory judgment. The dispute arose from Fort Apache's alleged contacts with an undetermined number of landowners who had existing leases with Trivista, attempting to convince them to sign top leases—future interests in mineral estates that take effect once existing bottom leases terminate—or in at least one instance, to terminate their existing lease with Trivista outright. The trial court granted Fort Apache's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), awarded Fort Apache $5,000 in costs and attorney's fees, and imposed an additional $5,000 sanction on Trivista. Trivista appealed.

The TCPA Framework and Burden-Shifting Analysis

The Court of Appeals applied the three-step TCPA analysis established by Texas law. First, the movant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the legal action is based on or is in response to its exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association. Second, if the TCPA applies, the claimant may avoid dismissal by establishing by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question. Third, even if the claimant meets that burden, the court must still grant the motion if the movant establishes an affirmative defense or other grounds entitling it to judgment as a matter of law.

Inextricable Intertwining with Protected Communications

The court held that Trivista's trespass to try title and declaratory judgment claims were inextricably intertwined with Fort Apache's alleged communications to landowners. This finding was critical because it brought all of Trivista's claims within the TCPA's protective scope, not merely the tortious interference claim that explicitly referenced communications.

Matter of Public Concern and Commercial Speech Exemption

The court concluded that Fort Apache's communications with landowners qualified as speech in connection with a matter of public concern under the TCPA. Critically, the court rejected Trivista's argument that the commercial-speech exemption to the TCPA should apply to preclude dismissal of the claims.

Attorney's Fees and Sanctions

The trial court awarded Fort Apache $5,000 in costs and attorney's fees and imposed an additional $5,000 sanction on Trivista. Fort Apache subsequently filed a motion to modify the judgment seeking to increase the amount of fees, costs, and sanctions, but that motion was not set for a hearing within the time when the District Court retained plenary power and was overruled by operation of law. Fort Apache appealed the denial of its motion to modify. The Court of Appeals declined to remand to the trial court for Fort Apache to present additional evidence on the amount of attorney's fees it incurred in defending against the action, and affirmed the judgment.