Texas Supreme Court Holds That Motions Are Not Within The Scope Of The TCPA In Ferchichi

The Supreme Court of Texas.
Texas has a modern but non-uniform Anti-SLAPP law known as the Texas Citizens Participation Act ("TCPA") which operates to protect free speech and related rights from the perils of abusive litigation brought to silence or retaliate against the speaker. In fact, the TCPA was one of two Anti-SLAPP laws (the other was California's) that were primarily relied upon in the drafting of the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") which has proven to be popular among state legislatures. There have been, however, criticisms of the TCPA arising not so much from the text of the statute itself but rather from misapplications of the TCPA by the lower Texas courts. Today, we see the Texas Supreme Court step in to correct the Texas Court of Appeals on one such issue.
The culprit in this case is the phrase "legal action". The TCPA provides for the early dismissal of a legal action if that litigation is based upon the speaker's lawful exercise of their free speech and related rights. The phrase "legal action" is ordinarily understood to basically mean a cause of action, which is basically a vessel found within a petition or complaint that states sufficient facts as would entitle a party to relief. It is very common that several actions be pled within a single petition or complaint based on essentially the same facts, such as with an auto accident case against a teenage driver where one action for negligence might be pled against the driver and a second against his parents for negligent entrustment of the vehicle. There should not be much, if any, confusion as to what a "legal action" means, although the UPEPA decided to use the phrase "cause of action" instead just to eliminate even the possibility of any such misinterpretation.
The TCPA defines a legal action as a "lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim", but then goes on to include "any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal, declaratory, or equitable relief." The purpose of that last phrase is to keep a litigant from filing something that states a legal action but attempting to call it something else, such as a Writ Of Mumbo Jumbo or something unusual. Nonetheless, it is that last phrase which stored up trouble, since a "filing" could be taken to mean a motion that requested some relief (although that is basically what every motion does).
Some of the Texas Court of Appeals held in a number of cases that "legal action" could include certain motions, such as discovery motions or motions for sanctions where the party bringing the motion sought monetary relief. The rationale of these courts was along the lines that since one party was trying to get money out of the other, that constituted a "legal action" which brought into play the TCPA. The upshot was that a party faced with a discovery motion seeking monetary relief or a motion for sanctions could challenge the motion itself by bringing a TCPA special motion. The other of the Texas Court of Appeals basically just said, "No, a motion is not a legal action whether it awards monetary relief or not."
Eventually, this split of opinions within the Texas Court of Appeals made its way up to the Texas Supreme Court which issued an opinion in Ferchichi v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC, 2025 WL 1350005 (Tex., May 9, 2025), which you can read for yourself here and which we will now examine.
After reviewing the split of cases within the Texas Court of Appeals, the Texas Supreme Court then went on to examine the text of the TCPA on this point. Again, the TCPA defines a legal action as a "lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim", but then goes on to include "any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal, declaratory, or equitable relief." While noting that this last phrase is meant to be broadly interpreted, the Texas Supreme Court also noted that it is meant to be interpreted according to a doctrine of statutory construction known as ejusdim generis. This doctrine basically states that where the legislature has given examples of various things in a statute, and then tacked on something akin to "and like things" at the end, those "like things" must be in the same family as those things which have been listed. Applied here, it meant that the "other judicial pleading or filing" needed to be like a lawsuit, cause of action, petition, etc.
To the contrary, the Texas Supreme Court noted:
"The motions to compel and for sanctions at issue here, by contrast, are not remotely 'like' a 'lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim.' Rather, they are based on conduct ancillary to the substantive claims in the case' and cannot stand on their own. []
It also did not matter to the Texas Supreme Court that a particular motion sought monetary relief, as that would not drag it under the coverage of the TCPA because those are procedural remedies not directly arising from the cause of action giving rise to the case:
"As such, there is no reason to treat a motion to compel that does not seek monetary relief any differently from one that does, at least for purposes of determining whether it constitutes a legal action under the TCPA."
Thus, the Texas Supreme Court held that motions did not fall within the ambit of the TCPA and a party cannot properly bring a TCPA special motion to try to get rid of the motion. Instead, a motion will be granted or denied without any regard to the TCPA.
ANALYSIS
There is not much to say about the Texas Supreme Court's ruling because it is right on target. The only criticism would be towards the particular Texas Court of Appeals which upheld the application of the TCPA to motions, which was frankly just silly from the outset.
The good news is that this ruling in Ferchichi should get rid of a substantial number of misuses of the Texas TCPA, which has come under criticism because of these and similar misuses. The problem is not with the TCPA, of course, but with the lower Texas courts which entertain and sometimes endorse these misuses. The only way to stop that is for the Texas Supreme Court to do what is did here, which was to render a corrective opinion. Very likely, the Texas Supreme Court will have to hear a higher volume of TCPA appeals for a while before the Texas Court of Appeals finally gets on board with the program.
Implicitly, the troubles of the Texas Supreme Court in herding the wet cats of the lower Texas courts onto the right track would be alleviated were Texas to adopt the UPEPA. This is because the UPEPA has the great benefit of uniformity, meaning that the lower courts could look to opinions from the appellate courts of other states to see what the right answer is, without falling for slick sounding but known to be incorrect arguments brought by creative litigants.
But that is for another day.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

34 minutes ago

• Fox News

Lawmakers, media dinged for blaming Trump or ripping Israel on Iran: 'You think Kamala could've stopped them?'

Lawmakers and mainstream media figures were blasted online Friday morning over some of their responses to the development that Israel executed a widespread bombing campaign against key Iranian targets. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-CT., wrote on X that Israel's attack was "clearly intended to scuttle the Trump administration's negotiations with Tehran," and is "further evidence of how little respect world powers - including our own allies - have for President Trump." Murphy, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, was later mocked for using the situation to slam Trump: "Do you think Israel respected Biden, Obama, or Bush? Now is not the time for a partisan bromide," one critic replied. "You think Kamala could've stopped them?" riffed another. Former Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner, D-Cleveland, an occasional media figure and former campaign staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., replied to Murphy's critics, saying that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has "always wanted a broader war." "This was inevitable, given the U.S. foreign policy towards Israel. Arms embargo now," Turner added. Left-wing former ESPN and MSNBC host Keith Olbermann informed Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on X that "your soul is lost" after the lawmaker celebrated Iran being attacked. "Game on, pray for Israel," Graham originally wrote. The oft-profane pundit did, however, receive some backhanded support from the right for the remarks, with one respondent saying, "you know society is about to collapse when I agree with Keith" – while another shared a "holy s---" meme featuring actor Keegan Michael Key. Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who has become one of President Donald Trump's loudest critics, went after Trump's supporters following the bombings. "Yesterday: Trump scared to death of action against Iran." On X, several pro-Trump ripped Kinzinger, saying he "lives in a bottle," "was too scared to run for reelection" in his swing Kankakee district because of his break with Trump, and should "cry harder." Kinzinger, however, did appear to celebrate Israel's killing of Iranian military commander Hossein Salami -- sharing a grinning GIF of the late Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain in response to a news alert. Several "Squad" members also got in on the action Friday, including Rep. Gregorio Casar of Texas. Casar said Netanyahu's "reckless strike risks provoking a wider war and pulling in the United States." He called on Trump to oppose Netanyahu's escalation and "not violate the Constitution" by involving U.S. troops without congressional approval. Reaction to Casar was mixed, with some respondents asking what his own strategy would be, while one defender of the Austin lawmaker shared a meme of Trump dressed as a chambermaid standing aside Netanyahu in his office. Meanwhile, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., actively sparred with critics of her statement that "regardless of what Trump thinks, Israel knows America will do whatever they want and feels confident about their ability to get into war and have the American government back them up." "Everyone in America should prepare themselves to either see their tax dollars being spent on weapon supplies to Israel or be dragged into war with Iran if this escalates." "Somalians belong in Somalia," one critic responded. "And in Congress," Omar shot back. When another critic said she should focus more on issues in her Minneapolis district, the congresswoman replied, "I am focusing on my district and we don't believe our tax dollars should go to war. Thank for your input." "This is all planned," tweeted "Squad" colleague Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. "Both [U.S. and Israel] are liars." Tlaib then claimed Jerusalem's government is "genocidal" and that "war criminal Netanyahu will do anything to maintain his grip on power." "Squad" member Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., followed by tweeting support for her "Block the Bombs Act" to withhold weapons sales to Israel in response to actions in Gaza. The far-left lawmaker, who took over longtime moderate Democrat Dan Lipinski's district, said that Netanyahu "cannot be trusted with offensive weapons that enable dangerous actions like what we saw last night." Elsewhere on social media, other liberal figures were raging at the Trump administration for other recent developments, like the brief detainment of Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., after he crashed Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's Los Angeles press conference. Col. Alexander Vindman, now retired, but a key figure in the Trump-Ukraine impeachment saga and a twin brother of Rep. Yevgeny "Eugene" Vindman, D-Va., railed against Noem multiple times, calling her a "fascist b---h." "Hey Kristi, f--- off," Vindman wrote. Frequent "Special Report" All-Star panelist Mollie Hemingway responded to Vindman, remarking on how the mainstream media regularly characterized him as a "stable," nonpartisan whistleblower.

Fox News

35 minutes ago

• Fox News

'Squad' erupts in fury as Trump takes bold action against Iranian nuclear threat

Members of the congressional "Squad" unleashed sharp criticism of President Donald Trump after he ordered a barrage of missile and bomb strikes on Iranian nuclear sites late Saturday. Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., was the most vocal of all, tweeting several times about the offensive. Responding to cryptocurrency exchange CEO Arjun Sethi's comment about U.S. "elites" being most united by war "especially against Muslims in the Middle East," Tlaib remarked, "Yep and it's so f---ing sick." "President Trump sending US troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of the Constitution. The American people do not want another forever war," Tlaib added in a separate message. "Instead of listening to the American people, Trump is listening to War Criminal Netanyahu who lied about Iraq and is lying once again about Iran. Congress must act immediately to exert its war powers and stop this unconstitutional war." She also retweeted right-wing Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who had commented "this (strike) is not constitutional." Squad Rep. Delia Ramirez, D-Ill., echoed Tlaib's concerns about "endless war," and called Trump and Netanyahu "warmongers." "It is the people who suffer the illegal & irresponsible actions of authoritarian leaders," she said. "Only Congress has the power to declare war. We must act to protect our safety and shared humanity." Rep. Gregorio Casar, D-Texas, a newer member of the far-left congressional group, claimed it is "illegal" for Trump to act as he did. "Congress should immediately pass a War Powers Resolution to block Trump from carrying out an unconstitutional war," the Austin lawmaker said. "My entire adult life, politicians have promised that new wars in the Middle East would be quick and easy. Then they sent other people's children to fight and die endlessly. Enough." The most recognizable Squad member, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called Trump's decision "disastrous" and said striking Iran without congressional authorization "a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers." "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations," Ocasio-Cortez went on, adding that Trump has established clear "grounds for impeachment." Though not a member of the Squad, Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., also made an impeachment call Saturday. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., reiterated other Squad members' criticisms, adding Trump "reckless(ly) escalate(ed)" the conflict between Israel and Iran. "Congress must vote immediately on Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Tim Kaine's War Powers resolutions when we return to session." Omar also shared a quote from Bill Clinton, saying prior to the strike that Trump should "diffuse" the situation and that Netanyahu has "long wanted to fight Iran." Rep. Ayanna Pressley, the Boston lawmaker who also identifies with the Squad, said Trump violated the Constitution and risking innocent lives. In Pittsburgh, Rep. Summer Lee said Trump is "acting fully outside of his authority and is once again trampling on the Constitution." "This is an illegal and terrifying escalation. Dropping bombs on Iran brings us closer to war, not peace, and he is putting millions of lives at stake. Congress must immediately pass our War Powers Resolution to rein him in." Lee mocked Trump as "your hypocritical 'anti-war' president who just illegally struck Iran and is putting countless lives at risk." Later Saturday, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said the Squad and others crying out about the War Powers Act, saying that courts have ruled it refers to deploying troops, not what Trump has done. "If we are attacked, the commander-in-chief has the authority and ability to protect Americans at home and abroad if we feel threatened or attacked," Mullin said. "He's keeping America safe," he told "Hannity."

Yahoo

39 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Toyota makes a tariff move customers are going to hate

Toyota makes a tariff move customers are going to hate originally appeared on TheStreet. While President Donald Trump's social media posts make it seem as though his tariff moves are executed at his whim, it is clear that at least some industries have a seat at the negotiating table. The auto industry's top executives have said they are in close contact with the White House and have even praised the president and his White House team for hearing their concerns. However, it is also clear that Trump's interest in protecting the auto industry's bottom line is Stellantis, and General Motors — America's Big 3 automakers — have all said that Trump's tariffs will cost them billions, and they've pulled their guidance due to a lack of visibility. Trump has made it clear to every industry that he doesn't want prices to increase, even going as far as telling companies like Walmart to just 'EAT THE TARIFFS.' So, every time the auto industry has been observed raising prices in recent months, it has denied that it has anything to do with tariffs. Others, like Mazda, have indeed eaten the tariffs, with the Japanese automaker sending a letter to its U.S. dealers informing them that it would not raise its sticker prices or tack on import fees for any vehicles already on dealership lots or that will come into the country before May 1. Toyota is the latest Japanese automaker to make a pricing move, but it isn't blaming the move on tariffs. Toyota sold over 2.3 million vehicles in the U.S. last year, a 3.7% year-over-year increase. Between April 2024 and March 2025, the company built 1.96 million units in the U.S., according to Statista. So, despite a U.S. production capacity that can handle nearly 2 million vehicles a year, Toyota still ships in nearly half a million vehicles from overseas to sell in the U.S. On June 21, Toyota said that prices for several Toyota and Lexus brand vehicles will rise by an average of $270 and $208, respectively, starting in July, according to an email seen by Bloomberg. While the price increase could be seen as a response to the 25% duties Trump has placed on auto imports, Toyota insists that the move is just part of its regular price review April, fellow Japanese automaker Mitsubishi said it would hold its vehicles in port for the foreseeable future instead of offloading them and being forced to pay duties. "We have sufficient stock on the ground at dealers for the moment to not impact customer choice," the company said at the time. While it was unclear how much cargo was in the ports, Mitsubishi's 330 U.S. dealers sold 109,843 vehicles in the U.S. in 2024, a 25.8% year-over-year increase and the brand's best performance since 2019. Earlier this month, the company announced that it is raising prices on three models, also saying that the move was just a regular adjustment and not a reaction to tariffs. Japanese car companies aren't the only ones afraid to pin their price increases on tariffs. In May, Ford sent a notice to dealers saying it planned to raise prices on the Mustang Mach-E electric SUV, Maverick pickup truck, and Bronco Sport SUV by as much as $2,000 on some models. Those vehicles are made in Mexico. More Automotive news Toyota makes surprising move to beat Tesla in key market A Ford spokesperson confirmed that the price increases will be seen on vehicles built after May 2. Those vehicles will start arriving on dealer lots in late June. The company emphasized that its employee pricing promotion remains for all of its vehicles through the July 4 weekend. Just like Mazda and Toyota before it, the company says the increase was due to its usual midyear pricing actions, but it was also "combined with some tariffs we are facing. We have not passed on the full cost of tariffs to our customers."Toyota makes a tariff move customers are going to hate first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 22, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 22, 2025, where it first appeared. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data