Photo: Vimvertigo

A bill in the Texas legislature that's supported by tort reformers but has drawn scorn from First Amendment lawyers and scores of media associations, TV news outlets and newspapers is likely to be quite different by the time it comes up for a hearing Monday.

HB 2730 by Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, would amend the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which curbs Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP lawsuits. The original anti-SLAPP law meant to protect people's rights to petition, free speech, free association and to participate in government. If someone faced a SLAPP lawsuit, they could move to dismiss the case quickly, and if she won a dismissal, she could collect costs, attorney fees, expenses and potentially sanctions from the losing party.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform, a tort reform group, is supporting the effort because its foundation researched the anti-SLAPP law and found that litigants are invoking it in unexpected and inappropriate ways, which the legislature never intended, said TLR general counsel Lee Parsley.

“We're concerned about the unintended consequences of the statute,” he said. For example, attorneys have used the law to dismiss lawyer disciplinary lawsuits, and so have defendants facing allegations that they violated trade secrets.

The Protect Free Speech Coalition, which includes hundreds of media associations, TV news outlets and state and national newspapers, has warned that Leach's bill could “gut the heart and soul” of the anti-SLAPP law. There'd be a way for plaintiffs who sue people to argue the activity at issue was not constitutionally protected, due to the new definitions in Leach's bill of what the law is supposed to cover, they say. There'd be confusion and litigation over what the new definition means.

Acknowledging the opposition, Parsley said that Leach planned to release a committee substitute, based on feedback from stakeholders, when the bill comes up for a hearing Monday in the House Judiciary Civil Jurisprudence Committee.

“What's going to come out the back end will protect the interests we all want to protect, and limit uses in cases we think it will not apply,” Parsley said. “The media will be fully protected, the ability of people to petition their government will be fully protected.”

Leach didn't return a call seeking comment before deadline.

Most of Leach's proposed changes are in the definitions section of the law. He proposes deleting definitions that explained the law's meaning of communication and what constitutes exercises of the rights of association, free speech and petitioning the government. The bill would delete the law's listing of governmental or official proceedings that are covered, the types of speech pertaining to a matter of public concern that the law applied to, and the types of public servants touched by the law.

Instead, the remaining definition under HB 2730 would just say the law applies to constitutional rights to petition, speech and assembly that are found in the Texas and U.S. Constitutions and court decisions pertaining to them. The bill also changes the definitions section to say that the type of legal action that the law applies to does not include any motion or actions related to civil discovery, motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss, procedures to enforce final court orders, or motion for sanctions or attorney fees.

HB 2730 adds some procedures for the hearings that come after a litigant invokes the anti-SLAPP law. It says the hearing can't be set sooner than 21 days after the motion to dismiss and that parties must have 14 days notice before the hearing.

Leach's bill also says a court can't rule on a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff nonsuited the legal action within three days of the hearing on the motion to dismiss. In that case, the court couldn't award the defendant with any costs, attorney fees, expenses or sanctions against the plaintiff.

It expands on the types of cases that are exempt from the anti-SLAPP statute. The bill would exempt compulsory counterclaims under the rules of civil procedure, certain legal actions under the family code or for criminal protective orders, or legal actions to enforce noncompete agreements, nondisclosure agreements or non-disparagement agreements.

San Antonio solo Alicia Calzada, who lobbied to pass the anti-SLAPP law years ago, said the worst provision is the one allowing a plaintiff to nonsuit a lawsuit within three days of a hearing on the  motion to dismiss.

“It would allow plaintiffs to file frivolous lawsuits, cause financial harm to the defendants and then nonsuit without prejudice—meaning the could refile again,” said Calzada, a First Amendment attorney. “Doing away with the definitions would increase the cost of litigation and lead to more appeals, not less.”