Opinion issued June 16, 2026.
In the
Court of Appeals
for the
First District of Texas
NO. 01-24-00755-CV
ALLISON CAMILLE LARTIGUE A/K/A ALLISON C. LARTIGUE AND
THE FREELANCE PARALEGAL, LLC, Appellants
v.
KARLEANA L. FARIAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 234th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2024-23723
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
1
Appellants Allison Camille Lartigue and The Freelance Paralegal, LLC
(collectively, Lartigue) filed a motion for rehearing of this Court’s April 30, 2026
opinion and judgment. We deny the motion for rehearing, withdraw our April 30,
2026 opinion and judgment, and issue this opinion and judgment in their place. Our
disposition remains the same.
Appellee Karleana L. Farias sued appellants Allison Camille Lartigue and The
Freelance Paralegal, LLC (collectively, Lartigue) for stalking.2 See TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE §§ 85.001-.006. Lartigue filed a motion to dismiss Farias’s action
under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). See id. §§ 27.001-.011. The trial
court denied Lartigue’s motion, and Lartigue appeals from that interlocutory order.
See id. § 51.014(a)(12) (providing right to interlocutory appeal from order denying
motion to dismiss made under TCPA).
On appeal, Lartigue contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion
because: (1) Lartigue met her burden to demonstrate that the TCPA applies to
Farias’s stalking claim; (2) Farias failed to establish, by clear and specific evidence,
a prima facie case for each essential element of her stalking claim; and (3) Lartigue
established affirmative defenses that bar Farias’s claim. Because we conclude that
Farias’s stalking claim is not based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of any
right or act that the TCPA protects, we affirm the trial court’s order denying her
motion to dismiss.
2
In the notice of appeal, the first appellant is erroneously named “Allison Camille
Lartigue a/k/a Allison C. Lartigue, LLC.” The original petition names two
defendants: (1) Allison Camille Lartigue a/k/a Allison C. Lartigue and (2) The
Freelance Paralegal, LLC. There is no entity named “Allison C. Lartigue, LLC” that
is party to the instant suit.
2
Background
The instant suit is related to a separate proceeding not before us. On December
14, 2023, the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee of the State of Texas (the
UPLC) filed suit against Lartigue and sought to enjoin her from practicing law
without a license (the UPLC Litigation). Prior to filing suit, the UPLC had assigned
Farias, an attorney, to investigate complaints made against Lartigue that Lartigue
was practicing law without a license. Among other things, the UPLC alleged that
Lartigue communicated with a potential client named Dale Keating and offered to
draft a demand letter and notice of intent to sue on his behalf.
While the UPLC Litigation was pending, Lartigue sent Farias multiple emails
and repeatedly called Farias’s law firm. On February 29, 2024, Lartigue sent an
email to Farias that stated, in part, “You need to come forward and state immediately
who Dale keating is or else I will have the police knocking on your door.”3 That
same day, Farias responded, stated that she was copying Lartigue’s attorney on the
email exchange, and requested that Lartigue stop communicating with her directly.
Lartigue replied, “nah.”
On April 7, 2024, Lartigue sent an email to Farias that referenced several
provisions of the Texas Penal Code and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code,
3
Unless an alteration is noted, the parties’ communications are transcribed exactly as
they appear without changes to spellings, capitalization, or punctuation.
3
suggesting that Farias committed criminal and civil violations. In that same email,
Lartigue wrote, “It’s worth mentioning that your ‘Office’ bears a striking
resemblance to the shed (dump, as some may call it), positioned on the southwest
corner of my Parents’ $13 Million Dollar Beach House.” That afternoon, Farias
forwarded a copy of Lartigue’s email to an email address associated with the
Houston Police Department. A little over an hour later, Farias then sent an email to
Lartigue’s lawyer with the subject line: “I have pressed charges against Lartigue.”
In the body of the email, Farias wrote, “After the repeated calls to my office and
multiple emails making threats, I made that decision for myself and my family, to
make a report and file charges against Ms Lartigue.”
The next morning, Lartigue sent an email to Farias that stated, among other
things, “You are going to tell me who Dale Keating is today as a precaution for my
safety. . . . You are also going to turn over my entire file of alleged ‘Complaints.’
. . . I never did anything wrong. Period. You are going to suffer now as much as I
have....go to sleep bitch[.]” The subject line read: “Dale – See you today.” A minute
later, Lartigue sent a separate email to Farias with the subject line: “Ill be by your
pig pen ..... around....whatever time works best for my busy schedule.”
Approximately two hours later, Farias sent an email—the recipients of which are
unclear from the record—stating that Lartigue “has sent three emails this morning
saying that she’s coming to my office i have alerted police.” Lartigue responded to
4
Farias’s email minutes later: “Correction : 1 email. You aren’t getting away with
fabricating stories for much longer[.]”
Four days later, on April 12, 2024, Farias filed the instant suit against Lartigue
for stalking and sought temporary and permanent injunctive relief. In her petition,
Farias alleged that, after the start of the UPLC Litigation, Lartigue “engaged in
inappropriate, harassing and profane contact with [Farias], members of the Farias
Law Firm, members of the law firm staff, and the after-hours answering service hired
by [Farias] and her law firm.” She further alleged that Lartigue made “credible
threats” and went to her law firm offices, preventing Farias from conducting “her
regular activities of daily business and meet[ing] safely with her clients.” Farias
attached an affidavit to her petition, in which she stated that:
Lartigue sent repeated emails and placed multiple calls to my office’s
after-hours answering service. . . . She has repeatedly [and] falsely
accused me of being a criminal and aiding and abetting criminal
conduct, and publicly made comments that I deserve to be disbarred.
Lartigue has made clear that she is coming to my office . . . . I have
reason to believe that Lartigue is aware of my home address. I am in
fear for my life and my immediate safety.
Farias attached her and Lartigue’s email correspondence to her affidavit.
On June 12, 2024, in the UPLC Litigation, the trial court entered an “Agreed
Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction,” bringing the UPLC Litigation to an end.
On July 31, 2024, in the instant suit, Lartigue filed a motion to dismiss under
the TCPA. In the motion, Lartigue argued that the TCPA applied to Farias’s stalking
5
claim because “Plaintiff’s claim of illegal stalking . . . is based on or in response to”:
(1) “Defendant’s exercise of her right of free speech,” (2) “Defendants’ exercise of
her right to petition,” and (3) “acts of the Defendant described by” section 27.010(b)
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 27.003(a) (setting forth grounds for motion to dismiss under TCPA). In support of
her motion, Lartigue submitted an affidavit in which she stated that all her and
Farias’s emails “related to” the UPLC Litigation and that in those communications
Lartigue “was demanding . . . to see [Farias’s] file containing all of the complaints,
their content, and who Dale Keating was.” Lartigue further stated in her affidavit
that she “never went to” Farias’s offices “to obtain this information.”
In Farias’s response to Lartigue’s motion, she argued that the TCPA does not
protect Lartigue’s “threatening, assaultive, and destructive conduct” and that her
stalking claim was in response to Lartigue’s threats, not Lartigue’s communications
regarding the UPLC Litigation. Farias also argued that Lartigue’s statements
amounted to true threats not protected by the First Amendment. In support of her
motion, Farias submitted another affidavit and attached pleadings from the UPLC
Litigation as well as copies of email correspondence that Farias had previously
attached to her petition when she filed suit.
6
In reply, Lartigue continued to argue that the emails she sent to Farias were
the basis for Farias’s suit, and she filed a supplemental affidavit, in which she stated
that the UPLC Litigation was the “but for” cause of her emails to Farias.
On September 16, 2024, the trial court held an oral hearing on Lartigue’s
motion to dismiss. Lartigue’s counsel filed written objections to the affidavit and
exhibits attached to Farias’s response and raised these objections during the hearing.
The trial court stated that it would rule on Lartigue’s objections when rendering a
ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Two days later, the trial court issued an order denying Lartigue’s motion to
dismiss. The trial court did not rule on Lartigue’s objections to the affidavit or
exhibits attached to Farias’s response to the motion to dismiss. Following the trial
court’s order, Lartigue filed a motion for reconsideration, objecting to the trial
court’s failure to rule on her objections.4 The trial court did not rule on Lartigue’s
motion for reconsideration. This interlocutory appeal followed.
4
We need not address Lartigue’s objections to portions of an affidavit and exhibits
attached to Farias’s response to Lartigue’s motion to dismiss because our resolution
of this appeal does not depend on the statements or exhibits to which Lartigue
objected. See Pecan St. Owners Ass’n v. Mala Vida, LLC, No. 03-25-00216-CV,
2025 WL 2981633, at *8 n.7 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 23, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.)
(not addressing evidentiary objections to affidavits because “evidence contained in
the affidavits is not relevant to the issues dispositive to this appeal”); Rouzier v.
Biote Med., LLC, No. 05-19-00277-CV, 2019 WL 6242305, at *3 n.2 (Tex. App.—
Dallas Nov. 22, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (not addressing evidentiary objections to
affidavit because resolution of appeal did “not depend upon any testimony” to which
appellant objected).
7
Denial of TCPA Motion
The legislature enacted the TCPA “to encourage and safeguard the
constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and
otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and,
at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for
demonstrable injury.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.002; see McLane
Champions, LLC v. Hou. Baseball Partners LLC, 671 S.W.3d 907, 913-14 (Tex.
2023) (recognizing purpose of TCPA). To accomplish this purpose, the statute
permits a party to file an early motion to dismiss, subject to interlocutory review.
McLane Champions, 671 S.W.3d at 914. Courts review TCPA motions under a
three-step, burden-shifting framework. Id. at 914 & n.6. First, a movant must
demonstrate that the legal action “is based on or is in response to” a protected right
and, therefore, subject to dismissal. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b). The
burden then shifts to the nonmovant to avoid dismissal by “establish[ing] by clear
and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in
question.” Id. § 27.005(c). If the nonmovant meets her burden, the legal action is
nonetheless subject to dismissal if the movant “establishes an affirmative defense or
other grounds on which the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Id. § 27.005(d).
8
We review de novo a trial court’s denial of a TCPA motion to dismiss.
Gaskamp v. WSP USA, Inc., 596 S.W.3d 457, 470 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2020, pet. dism’d) (en banc) (citing Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Hou., Inc. v. John
Moore Servs., Inc., 441 S.W.3d 345, 353 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet.
denied)). In considering whether a legal action is subject to or should be dismissed
under the TCPA, we consider the pleadings, evidence a court could consider under
rule 166a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and supporting and opposing
affidavits stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based. TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE § 27.006(a). The plaintiff’s allegations, not the defendant’s
admissions or denials, determine the basis of the legal action. Hersh v. Tatum, 526
S.W.3d 462, 467 (Tex. 2017). We view the pleadings and evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant. Kassab v. Pohl, 612 S.W.3d 571, 577 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied). We do not “blindly accept” the movant’s
characterization of the nonmovant’s claims. Sloat v. Rathbun, 513 S.W.3d 500, 504
(Tex. App.—Austin 2015, pet. dism’d); see Ernst & Young, LLP v. Ryan, LLC, No.
01-21-00603-CV, 2023 WL 4239350, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June
29, 2023, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (“[W]e do not blindly accept attempts by
appellants to characterize Ryan’s claims as implicating protected expression and
conduct.” (citing Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at 504)); Jones v. Pierce, No. 01-23-00187-CV,
9
2023 WL 7778583, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 16, 2023, no pet.)
(mem. op.) (quoting Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at 504).
In her first three issues, Lartigue contends that the TCPA applies to Farias’s
stalking claim because that claim is based on or in response to one or more of the
following: (1) Lartigue’s exercise of her right to petition, (2) Lartigue’s exercise of
her right of free speech, or (3) the act of a party described by section 27.010(b) of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 27.005(b) (setting forth bases for dismissal under TCPA). In response, Farias
argues that her suit is based on communications that are harassing and threatening,
and therefore, the TCPA does not apply under any theory that Lartigue advances.
A. Right to Petition
In her first issue, Lartigue contends that Farias’s stalking claim “is based on
or is in response to” Lartigue’s “exercise of . . . the right to petition . . . .” TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b)(1). As relevant here, the “exercise of the right to
petition” includes “a communication in or pertaining to . . . a judicial proceeding”
and “any other communication that falls within the protection of the right to petition
government under the Constitution of the United States or the constitution of this
state.” Id. §§ 27.001(4)(A), (E). “We construe the phrase ‘pertaining to’ according
to its ordinary meaning as relating directly to or concerning or having to do with.”
Jetall Cos. v. Johanson, No. 01-19-00305-CV, 2020 WL 6435778, at *3 (Tex.
10
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 3, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Pertain,
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019)). The TCPA defines “communication”
to “include[] the making or submitting of a statement or document in any form or
medium, including oral, visual, written, audiovisual, or electronic.” Id. § 27.001(1).
In urging that Farias’s stalking claim “is based on or is in response to”
Lartigue’s exercise of her right to petition, Lartigue principally relies on the
following allegations in Farias’s original petition:
Plaintiff serves as an investigator and Chair of the District 4
Subcommittee of the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee. . . .
The District 4 Subcommittee is charged with investigating and
responding to complaints made by members of the general public
against individuals who are believed to be practicing law without a
license. . . .
After an extensive investigation of public complaints against Defendant
Lartigue and The Freelance Paralegal, LLC . . . . for allegations that she
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the State Committee of the
UPLC authorized the filing of a lawsuit to enjoin Lartigue from
engaging in acts which constitute the unauthorized practice of law. . . .
Plaintiff would show that during the investigation of UPL complaints
allegedly committed by Defendant Lartigue, Defendant engaged in
inappropriate, harassing and profane contact with Plaintiff, members of
the Farias Law Firm, members of the law firm staff, and the after-hours
answering service hired by Plaintiff and her law firm.
Lartigue contends that each of Lartigue’s communications on which Farias’s
stalking claim is based occurred after the UPLC Litigation commenced and pertains
to that judicial proceeding. In emails to Farias, Lartigue mentioned “Dale Keating,”
a complainant in the investigation that underpinned the UPLC Litigation, and, at
11
times, requested that Farias “turn over [the] entire file of alleged ‘Complaints.’”
Lartigue also points to her supplemental affidavit, in which she stated:
But for the complaints being investigated by Karleana L. Farias, such
as Dale Keating’s complaint against me, which are the bases to the
UPLC lawsuit, that she refused to provide me, along with her complete
file to allow me to defend myself, none of these e-mails that are the
basis of the present suit would have been sent to Karleana L. Farias by
me.
However, as noted, we do not blindly accept a movant’s characterization of
the nonmovant’s claims. Sloat, 513 S.W.3d at 504. That Farias, in her original
petition, referenced another judicial proceeding—the UPLC Litigation—does not
mean that her stalking claim is based on or in response to any communication
pertaining to that proceeding. See, e.g., Abundant Life Therapeutic Servs. Tex., LLC
v. Headen, No. 05-20-00145-CV, 2020 WL 7296801, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec.
11, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding that claim was not “based on or in
response to” movant’s exercise of right to petition even though petition referenced
another ongoing lawsuit); Ruff v. Ruff, No. 05-24-00095-CV, 2025 WL 757148, at
*4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 10, 2025, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that incidental
reference to judicial proceeding in petition did not make suit “based on or in response
to” communications pertaining to judicial proceeding); Choudhri v. Lee, No. 01-20-00098-CV, 2020 WL 4689204, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 13,
2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that a legal action does not implicate
communications in or pertaining to judicial proceeding when a party’s pleading
12
merely “reference[s] the filing of various legal actions by both parties as factual
background”). As for Lartigue’s statements in her supplemental affidavit, they
establish only that Lartigue’s communications were motivated by the UPLC
Litigation. That fact alone does not mean that each of those communications pertains
to the UPLC Litigation.
Even so, it is not enough that Lartigue points to communications made by her
that pertain to a judicial proceeding. To satisfy her initial burden under the TCPA,
Lartigue must demonstrate that Farias’s suit is “based on” or “in response to” those
communications. This Court has held that the “based on” component of a movant’s
step-one burden requires that the activity protected by the TCPA be the “main
ingredient” or “fundamental part” of the legal action that the movant challenges.
HouReal Corp. v. Rescue Concepts Inc., 722 S.W.3d 145, 152 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2025, no pet.) (citing Ernst & Young, 2023 WL 4239350, at *8). The “in
response to” component “denotes some sort of answer or other act in return or ‘in
reaction to’ the alleged communications.” Id. In HouReal, the defendant sought to
dismiss the plaintiff’s breach-of-contract action under the TCPA because the
plaintiff alleged in its petition that the defendant made incorrect statements in a
hearing in a prior suit. Id. at 153. Nonetheless, we held that the plaintiff’s suit was
not based on or in response to those statements. Id. at 154. Rather, the “gravamen”
of the plaintiff’s legal action was that the defendant breached an agreement to sell
13
real property to the plaintiff by instead selling that property to a third party. Id. at
148, 154. Thus, the plaintiff’s legal action did not “consist[] of” statements made by
the defendant in a judicial proceeding. Id. at 154 (citing Walgreens v. McKenzie, 713
S.W.3d 394, 400-02 (Tex. 2025)).5
Similarly, here, Farias does not complain about, for example, Lartigue’s
request for copies of the complaints that served as the basis for the UPLC Litigation.
Rather, in her petition bringing a stalking claim against Lartigue, Farias complains
of “inappropriate, harassing and profane contact with Plaintiff, members of the
Farias Law Firm, members of the law firm staff, and the after-hours answering
service hired by Plaintiff and her law firm.” In the affidavit attached to her petition,
Farias complains that Lartigue “has made clear that she is coming to my office and
has concluded emails with threats such as, ‘You are going to suffer now as much as
I have...go to sleep bitch.’” Farias attached to her petition an email by Lartigue that
read: “Ill be by your pig pen ..... around....whatever time works best for my busy
schedule.” When Farias notified Lartigue’s attorney that Lartigue “has sent three
emails this morning saying that she’s coming to my office i have alerted police,”
Lartigue replied to Farias by email: “Correction : 1 email. You aren’t getting away
5
On April 21, 2026, Lartigue, through her counsel, filed a letter, in which she urged
that we consider an opinion that the Texas Supreme Court issued after the close of
briefing in this appeal: Walgreens v. McKenzie, 713 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. 2025). Our
opinion is consistent with the reasoning and holding of Walgreens.
14
with fabricating stories for much longer[.]” Even if the UPLC Litigation motivated
Lartigue’s communications, as Lartigue contends in her supplemental affidavit, that
does not mean all her statements “pertain to” that judicial proceeding. “[A]lleged
threats made outside the context of [a] lawsuit” are not communications “in or
pertaining to . . . a judicial proceeding.” Serafine v. Blunt, 466 S.W.3d 352, 360
(Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.). Those alleged threats are the “gravamen” of
Farias’s stalking claim, not any communications Lartigue made in or pertaining to
the UPLC Litigation. See HouReal, 722 S.W.3d at 154.
The authorities on which Lartigue relies do not compel a contrary conclusion.
In arguing that Farias’s claim is based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of her
right to petition, Lartigue relies on Garcia v. Semler, 663 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2022, no pet.); Holcomb v. Waller Cnty., 546 S.W.3d 833 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied); and Bibby v. Bibby, 634 S.W.3d 401 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2021, no pet.). Each of those cases is distinguishable. In
Garcia, the nonmovant essentially failed to contest application of the TCPA and
argued only that her claim was meritorious, an argument that goes to step two of the
TCPA analysis—i.e., whether the nonmovant can establish a prima facie case. 663
S.W.3d at 280. Similarly, in Bibby, the nonmovant conceded that the legal action
was based on protected activity. 634 S.W.3d at 409. Unlike the nonmovants in
Garcia and Bibby, Farias does not concede or waive argument on step one of the
15
TCPA analysis. Lastly, in Holcomb, Waller County sought a declaratory judgment
that signs posted in county buildings prohibiting firearms did not violate state law in
response to a citizen’s sending a letter to the county complaining of the signs for that
reason. 546 S.W.3d at 839. In sending the letter, the citizen exercised his right to
petition, and the county sued him in response to his exercise of that right. Id. at 840.
As discussed above and unlike the county in Holcomb, Farias’s stalking claim is not
in response to any attempt by Lartigue to “seek ‘redress of grievances.’” Id. at 840
(quoting TEX. CONST. art. 1, § 27). Her claim is in response to Lartigue’s statements
that Lartigue intends to come to Farias’s offices, that Farias is “going to suffer,” that
Farias will no longer “get[] away with fabricating stories,” and other similar
statements that Farias interpreted as threats to the safety of herself, her family, and
her office staff.
Lastly, Lartigue notes that she filed police reports against Keating, which is
an exercise of the right to petition under the TCPA. See Bibby, 634 S.W.3d at 408-09
(noting that party exercises her right to petition under TCPA by filing police report,
whether true or false). However, as with other communications made by Lartigue,
Lartigue does not demonstrate that Farias’s suit is based on or in response to any
police report Lartigue filed against Keating. Lartigue’s only evidence is that she sent
an email informing Farias of the police reports against Keating. That evidence is
insufficient to carry Lartigue’s burden.
16
Lartigue has not met her initial burden of demonstrating that Farias’s stalking
claim is based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of her right to petition, and
we overrule her first issue.
B. Right of Free Speech
In her third issue, Lartigue contends that Farias’s stalking claim “is based on
or is in response to” Lartigue’s “exercise of . . . the right of free speech . . . .” TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b)(1).6 The “exercise of the right of free speech”
means “a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern,”
which is defined as “a statement or activity regarding . . . a public official[;] . . . a
matter of political, social, or other interest to the community; or . . . a subject of
concern to the public.” Id. §§ 27.001(3), (7). As previously mentioned, the TCPA
defines “communication” to “include[] the making or submitting of a statement or
document in any form or medium, including oral, visual, written, audiovisual, or
electronic.” Id. § 27.001(1).
Lartigue contends that her emails and calls to Farias related to the
unauthorized practice of law, which is a matter of public concern. In support of her
argument, Lartigue relies on Kostura v. Judge, 627 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App.—
6
Because Lartigue’s arguments concerning the exercise of her rights to petition and
of free speech are interrelated, we next address her contention that Farias’s stalking
claim is based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of her right of free speech.
We address Lartigue’s second issue last.
17
Amarillo 2021, pet. denied). In Kostura, the court of appeals held that a law firm’s
letters to clients regarding one of its partner’s diminished capacity to practice law
“were communications made in connection with a matter of public concern” under
the TCPA. 627 S.W.3d at 386. That letter served as the basis for the partner’s claims
of defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress
against the law firm. Id. at 384. Lartigue’s conduct is not analogous to the law firm’s
in Kostura. Lartigue did not make statements concerning the unauthorized practice
of law. Rather, the UPLC accused Lartigue of the unauthorized practice of law
following an investigation by Farias.
Additionally, Lartigue contends, and relies on her supplemental affidavit for
support, that the UPLC Litigation and preceding investigation are the “but for” cause
of her emails to Farias. Accepting that contention as true, that fact does not transform
each of Lartigue’s emails and calls to Farias into “a communication made in
connection with a matter of public concern.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 27.001(3). Even if portions of Lartigue’s communications were in connection with
a matter of public concern—such as, arguably, comments on Farias’s abilities as a
licensed attorney or alleged criminal and civil violations—the question is whether
Farias’s stalking claim “is based on or is in response to” Lartigue’s exercise of her
right of free speech rather than in response to Lartigue’s harassing conduct. Ernst &
Young, 2023 WL 4239350, at *6 (“The mere inclusion of allegations in the petition,
18
some of which include expression or conduct protected by the TCPA and some of
which do not, does not transform the tortious interference claim into one based on
or responding to any protected activity.”). In Ernst & Young, we recognized that
public auditors perform an important public function and that “audit-related
communications and conduct are connected with or relate to a matter of public
concern.” Id. at *5. At the same time, we concluded that the plaintiff’s legal action
was not based on or in response to any audit-related communications. Id. at *7-8.
Rather, the legal action was based on allegations that the accounting firm
inappropriately received the plaintiff’s audit communications and then used those
communications to solicit business. Id. at *8.
Likewise, here, even if there is some connection between the unauthorized
practice of law and Lartigue’s emails and calls, Farias’s stalking claim rests on
Lartigue’s allegedly harassing conduct, not any matter of public concern. As detailed
above, Lartigue made repeated and unwanted calls and emails to Farias that included
threats to show up at Farias’s offices and to make Farias “suffer.” Threats are not
“protected communication[s] about a matter of public concern within the meaning
of the TCPA.” Whitelock v. Stewart, 661 S.W.3d 583, 596–97, 605–06 (Tex. App.—
El Paso 2023, pet. denied) (holding that TCPA did not apply to intentionalinflection-of-emotional-distress claim predicated on “death threats, threats of arson,
theft, and trespass” but did apply to defamation claim based on communications
19
accusing party of criminal acts); see Sloat v. Rathbun, 513 S.W.3d 500, 508 (Tex.
App.—Austin 2015, pet. dism’d) (noting that “it strains credulity to consider . . .
harassing conduct . . . as having any direct relationship” with a matter of public
concern); Grant v. Finecy, No. 02-23-00310-CV, 2023 WL 8940395, at *7 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth Dec. 28, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that TCPA did not
apply to stalking claim “predicated upon allegations of both harassing and
threatening conduct”); cf. Serafine, 466 S.W.3d at 360 (holding that “alleged threats
made outside the context of the lawsuit” were not communications in or pertaining
to a judicial proceeding under TCPA). It is those threats on which Farias’s stalking
claim is based, not any incidental comments by Lartigue regarding the UPLC
Litigation.
Lartigue has not met her initial burden of demonstrating that Farias’s stalking
claim is based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of her right of free speech,
and we overrule her third issue.
C. Section 27.010(b)
In her second issue, Lartigue contends Farias’s stalking claim “is based on or
is in response to . . . the act of a party described by” section 27.010(b) of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b)(2).
Section 27.010(b) specifies certain types of legal actions to which the TCPA applies,
notwithstanding the exemptions set forth in section 27.010(a). Relevant to this
20
appeal, section 27.010(b)(2) describes “a legal action against a person related to the
communication, gathering, receiving, posting, or processing of consumer opinions
or commentary, evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of
businesses.” Id. § 27.010(b)(2). The acts “described by” section 27.010(b)(2) are
“the communication, gathering, receiving, posting, or processing of consumer
opinions or commentary, evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings
of businesses.” Id. Taking these provisions together, a legal action is subject to
dismissal under the TCPA if it is based on or in response to the communication,
gathering, receiving, posting, or processing of consumer opinions or commentary,
evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses. Maggret v.
Ramsey’s Rods & Restoration, No. 02-20-00395-CV, 2021 WL 2253244, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth June 3, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); see Wheeler v. J. M. Martin
Custom Homes, Inc., 728 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2025, no pet.)
(concluding that TCPA applies to legal actions based on “the communication,
gathering, receiving, posting, or processing of consumer opinions or commentary,
evaluations of consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses”); Gulf
Coast Pros, LLC v. Sweeney, No. 09-23-00320-CV, 2024 WL 3057494, at *9 (Tex.
App.—Beaumont June 20, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same); Pate v. Haven at
Thorpe Lane, LLC, 681 S.W.3d 476, 488-89 (Tex. App.—Austin 2023) (same),
21
rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Ferchichi v. Whataburger Rests. LLC, 713 S.W.3d
330 (Tex. 2025).7
In her brief, Lartigue contends that Farias’s stalking claim “arose from”
Farias’s communication or conduct in “receiving and processing” consumer
complaints, which resulted in the UPLC Litigation. Even if we accept the contention
that Farias was engaged in “the communication, gathering, receiving, posting, or
processing of consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of consumer
complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses,” Farias’s stalking claim is not based
7
Our sister courts of appeals have recognized, as we do here, that the acts described
by section 27.010(b)(2) are “the communication, gathering, receiving, posting, or
processing of consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of consumer
complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 27.010(b)(2). However, to the extent our sister courts of appeals have suggested
that a movant discharges her initial burden under the TCPA by demonstrating that
a legal action is “related to” or “arises from” one of those acts, we disagree. See
Wheeler v. J. M. Martin Custom Homes, Inc., 728 S.W.3d 326, 330 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2025, no pet.) (“Section 27.010(b)(2) makes the TCPA applicable to
Martin’s counterclaim if it is related to the communication, gathering, receiving,
posting, or processing of consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of
consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses.” (emphasis added)
(citation modified)); Pate v. Haven at Thorpe Lane, LLC, 681 S.W.3d 476, 488-89
(Tex. App.—Austin 2023) (“[W]e hold that Haven’s motion for sanctions ‘arises
from’ the mothers’ actions in furtherance of their communication or conduct
described by Section 27.010(b).” (citation modified)), rev’d on other grounds sub
nom. Ferchichi v. Whataburger Rests. LLC, 713 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. 2025). For the
TCPA to apply under this basis, a movant must demonstrate that a legal action “is
based on or is in response to . . . the act of a party described by” section 27.010(b)
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE
§ 27.005(b)(2); see Maggret v. Ramsey’s Rods & Restoration, No. 02-20-00395-CV, 2021 WL 2253244, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 3, 2021, no pet.) (mem.
op.) (“The Maggrets will have established their initial burden if they show that
Ramsey’s suit is based on an act described in Section 27.010(b). . . .” (emphasis
added)).
22
on or in response to any of those acts as the TCPA requires. That a legal action
“arises from” one of those acts may permit a party to file a motion to dismiss under
the TCPA, but it does not authorize dismissal on that basis. Compare TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 27.005(b) (requiring, as a prerequisite of dismissal, that a
party demonstrate that the “legal action is based on or is in response to” a protected
right or specified act) with id. § 27.003(a) (authorizing a party to file a motion to
dismiss if a “legal action . . . arises from any act of that party in furtherance of the
party’s communication or conduct described by Section 27.010(b)”).
Lartigue has not met her initial burden of demonstrating that Farias’s stalking
claim is based on or in response to “the communication, gathering, receiving,
posting, or processing of consumer opinions or commentary, evaluations of
consumer complaints, or reviews or ratings of businesses,” and we overrule her
second issue.
Because we have concluded that the TCPA does not apply to Farias’s stalking
claim under any basis advanced by Lartigue, we need not address Lartigue’s
remaining arguments regarding whether Farias established a prima facie case or
whether Lartigue established an affirmative defense as a matter of law. See McLane
Champions, LLC v. Hou. Baseball Partners LLC, 671 S.W.3d 907, 914, 920 (Tex.
2023) (concluding that TCPA does not apply under first step and ending analysis);
23
Wayne Dolcefino & Dolcefino Commc’ns, LLC v. Cypress Creek EMS, 540 S.W.3d
194, 202 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, no pet.) (same).
Conclusion
Because we conclude that Lartigue has not demonstrated that Farias’s stalking
claim is based on or in response to Lartigue’s exercise of a right or act protected by
the TCPA, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Lartigue’s motion to dismiss
under the TCPA.
Amparo “Amy” Guerra
Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.
24