Hearing an anti-SLAPP motion

Originally published by David Coale.

“The text of [Civil Practice Code] sections 27.008(a) and 51.014(a)(12) is clear. A movant for dismissal under section 27.003 may bring an interlocutory appeal from the express denial of the motion to dismiss or from the denial by operation of law resulting from the trial court’s failure to rule on the motion within thirty days after the hearing. Id. §§ 27.008(a), 51.014(a)(12). If the trial court does not expressly deny the motion to dismiss and the motion to dismiss is not denied by operation of law because there was no hearing, then there is no order subject to an interlocutory appeal.”

Does such a rule produce an “absurd result” because it lets a trial court “deny a defendant the right to an early dismissal of a meritless and retaliatory suit by refusing to set the motion for a hearing or refer the case to a judge or associate judge to hear the motion”? Held, no: “The statute requires a defendant seeking its protections to move for dismissal and obtain a hearing on the motion within certain clearly defined periods. The failure to meet these requirements results in the defendant forfeiting the statute’s protections.” Braun v. Haley and Braun v. Gordon, (Sept. 26, 2017) (mem. ops.)

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2yapWCE
via Abogado Aly Website