Michael Williams and Pearl 1 Services, LLC v. Jim Roche, Debra Roche, and Marie Willis

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-23-00042-CV Michael Williams and Pearl 1 Services, LLC, Appellant v. Jim Roche, Debra Roche, and Marie Willis, Appellee On appeal from the 40th District Court of Ellis County, Texas Judge Bob Carroll, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 108537 JUSTICE HARRIS delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Michael Williams and Pearl 1 Services, LLC (collectively the “Pearl Group”) sued Jim Roche, Debra Roche and Marie Willis (collectively the “MW Individuals”). The MW Individuals filed motions to dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”) 1. The Pearl Group filed a response to the MW Individuals’s TCPA motions, attaching exhibits. The MW 1 Marie Willis filed a separate, similar motion to dismiss subject to her special appearance. Individuals filed a consolidated reply in support of their TCPA motions, containing objections to exhibits to the Pearl Group’s First Amended Response to Defendants’ TCPA Motion to Dismiss. The trial court granted the MW Individuals’s motions to dismiss and sustained the MW Individuals’s objections. The Pearl Group complains that the trial court erred by: (1) dismissing the Pearl Group’s claims of defamation and business disparagement based on the Texas Citizens Participation Act; and (2) sustaining the MW Individuals’s objections to the Pearl Group’s evidence. We affirm. Background The MW Individuals are employees and/or officers of the California company, MW Services, LLC (“MW Services”). Marie Willis (“Ms. Willis”) is the President of MW Services. Jim Roche (“Mr. Roche”) is a project manager, and Debra Roche (“Mrs. Roche”) is an administrative assistant. MW Services contracted with the United States Air Force / Dyess Air Force Base to serve as the general or prime contractor for construction projects at Dyess Air Force Base (the “Projects”). MW Services hired Pearl 1 Services, LLC (“Pearl 1”) to serve as a subcontractor for the Projects. Michael Williams is the President and owner of Pearl 1. Michael Williams and Pearl 1 Services, LLC v. Jim Roche, Debra Roche, and Marie Willis Page 2  During the Projects, disputes arose between the Pearl Group, MW Services, and the MW Individuals regarding payments, the schedule, and the status of the Pearl Group’s payments to Pearl 1 employees. Through the course of these disputes, communications and statements (the “Statements”) were exchanged between the MW Individuals and third parties, including persons from the United States Air Force / Dyess Air Force Base, Pearl 1 employees, and Pearl 1’s bonding company (the “Third Parties”). The Pearl Group sued the MW Individuals for defamation and business disparagement related to those Statements allegedly made by the MW Individuals to the Third Parties in connection with the Project. The MW Individuals then moved to dismiss the Pearl Group’s lawsuit under the TCPA. After a hearing, the trial court sustained the MW Individuals’s objections to certain exhibits filed by the Pearl Group, granted the MW Individuals’s TCPA motion to dismiss, and awarded the MW Individuals reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees in the amount of $60,224.85, plus conditional fees in the event of appeals. Specifically, the trial court sustained the MW Individuals’s objections to the Pearl Group’s exhibits 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, and to paragraphs 5, 9, 15, 20, 34, 41, 42, 43, and 44 of Mr. Williams’s Amended Declaration (“Exhibits at Issue”). Michael Williams and Pearl 1 Services, LLC v. Jim Roche, Debra Roche, and Marie Willis Page 3  The TCPA In their first issue, the Pearl Group complains the trial court erred by granting the MW Individuals’s motions to dismiss and awarding the MW Individuals attorney’s fees under the TCPA. We disagree. Standard of Review We review a trial court's ruling on a TCPA motion to dismiss de novo. Martin v. Walker, 606 S.W.3d 565, 567 (Tex. App.—Waco 2020, pet. denied); Holcomb v. Waller County, 546 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied). In reviewing the trial court's ruling, we “consider the pleadings, evidence a court could consider under Rule 166a, 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 ANN. § 27.006(