Haven at Thorpe Lane is a student-housing apartment complex in San Marcos that was scheduled to be ready for move-in before the 2019 fall semester but was still under construction when the semester began, leaving many students who had signed leases without alternative housing.¹ Dozens of students sued Haven's owner and others for fraud and deceptive trade practices, alleging that Haven knew the building would not be ready, falsely assured students that it would be, and issued "Move-in Guarantees" it never intended to honor; thirty-five plaintiffs started the suit and forty-four were plaintiffs by the tenth amended petition.² During discovery, Haven concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to adequately respond to document requests and had spoliated evidence, so it served subpoenas duces tecum on Jerretta Pate and April Burke (the Mothers), the mothers of two plaintiffs, who had complained about Haven's delays on social media and to local news and had created a private Facebook group called "Haven at Thorpe Lane is a Joke!!!".³ The Mothers produced some documents and withheld others as "[a]ssociational; privacy".⁴

Haven moved to compel production and asked for the attorney's fees and expenses it incurred in obtaining that relief; the Mothers filed a TCPA motion to dismiss Haven's motion, arguing that Haven's purpose was to "harass and punish" them for their speech, and the trial court denied it.¹ A divided Third Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because Haven sought monetary sanctions against what it considered new parties, the motion added a claim and was a "legal action" that Haven had not supported with a prima facie case; Justice Baker dissented.² Haven petitioned for review on January 5, 2024, and the Court requested merits briefing on March 8, 2024; it granted the petition on August 30, 2024, consolidated it for oral argument with No. 23-0568, Ferchichi v. Whataburger Restaurants LLC, heard argument on December 3, 2024, and decided both in one opinion on May 9, 2025.³

Petition for review from the Third Court of Appeals in an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss; consolidated for oral argument with No. 23-0568 and decided with it in one opinion, argued December 3, 2024, and decided May 9, 2025.⁴

Haven presents whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a motion to compel that includes a request for discovery sanctions is a "legal action" under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), that the motion related to or arose from the Mothers' protected communications, and that Haven failed to present evidence of a valid subpoena and noncompliance.¹ The Mothers frame the issues as whether Haven's motion seeking fees and expenses is a legal action because it adds new claims for monetary relief against new parties, whether they established the nexus to protected rights, and whether Haven failed to establish a prima facie case.² The principal issue the Court decided in both consolidated cases is whether a motion to compel discovery and for associated monetary sanctions is a "legal action".³

The Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo, seeking the Legislature's intent and construing words in their plain and common meaning and in the context of the statute as a whole.¹

Whether a motion to compel and for sanctions is a "legal action" under the TCPA.

Petitioner (Haven): The motion to compel was an effort to obtain relevant discovery from third-party witnesses, not a legal action responding to protected speech; it was a response to discovery abuse by third parties who were withholding evidence, as Justice Baker's dissent recognized, and it was not retribution for any exercise of First Amendment rights.¹ In reply it argues that the TCPA has been contorted beyond its limits, since the Mothers turned a simple discovery dispute into a two-and-a-half year stay of the underlying lawsuit, and that reversal would reduce satellite litigation.²

Respondents (the Mothers): The Legislature applied the TCPA to "any . . . judicial pleading or filing," including motions that add claims to retaliate against protected rights; Haven's motion, whose true grievance was the Mothers' public criticism of it, added new claims for monetary relief against new parties based on new facts, so it is a legal action, and Haven failed to carry its burden of a prima facie case.³

Haven argued that the court of appeals' holding runs afoul of the TCPA, its purpose, and its 2019 amendments, and that the TCPA has generated satellite litigation over discovery disputes.¹ The Court noted that the courts of appeals are divided on whether a motion for sanctions is a "legal action," a division that predates the 2019 amendment.²

• Nathan Garland filed an amicus curiae letter on November 27, 2024.

Holding

Motions to compel and for sanctions are not "legal actions" under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 27.001(6), because under the ejusdem generis canon the catch-all covers only filings like those enumerated, which commence or materially amend a proceeding on a substantive claim; the TCPA therefore does not apply, and the trial courts correctly denied the motions to dismiss.¹

Reasoning

The TCPA defines a "legal action" as "a lawsuit, cause of action, petition, complaint, cross-claim, or counterclaim or any other judicial pleading or filing that requests legal, declaratory, or equitable relief," and in 2019 the Legislature excluded "a procedural action taken or motion made in an action that does not amend or add a claim for legal, equitable, or declaratory relief".² The definition is broad but not limitless, and under ejusdem generis the catch-all must be limited to filings "like" the enumerated ones, which are connected by their function of commencing, or materially amending, a proceeding on a substantive legal claim, as the 2019 exception confirms.³ Filings like third-party claims and claim-asserting interventions fit that description, but motions to compel and for sanctions are "based on conduct ancillary to the substantive claims in the case" and cannot stand on their own.⁴

The Court rejected the courts of appeals' view that any filing requesting monetary relief is a legal action, because the relief in a discovery motion is available only as Rule 215 allows, and it rejected the broad reading of "claim" that ignores the statutory context.⁵ Applying the TCPA to such motions would subvert its purpose: filing a TCPA motion suspends discovery and allows an interlocutory appeal that stays the trial court proceedings, which make no sense for an ancillary discovery dispute.⁶ A party facing such a motion may file a response in opposition and, if the motion is frivolous, seek sanctions under Chapter 10 or Rule 13, while the underlying litigation proceeds.⁷ The Court did not hold that a procedural motion can never be a legal action, since one that amends or adds a claim can be, and it did not reach whether the motions were based on protected activity or how they should be resolved on remand.⁸

Disposition

The Court reversed the courts of appeals' judgments in both cases and remanded to the trial courts for further proceedings.⁹

Vote Breakdown

Justice Lehrmann delivered the opinion of the Court.¹⁰