Texas Business Court Decision – June 15, 2026
No. 26-BC11A-0026 Local Marketing, Inc. v. Angela Bennett, et al. (11th Div. Judge Sharp), 2026 Tex. Bus. 40 26-bc11a-0026-local-marketing-v-bennett-2026-tex-bus-40.pdf
Employment Contracts/Defamation/Tortious Interference.
Background and Ruling. This is a departing employee dispute and arose after Local Marketing (Local) sued former executives and employees in Harris County, alleging they had formed a competing marketing company using Local’s trade secrets and in breach of employment contracts. After Local removed the case to the Business Court, defendants Heidi Jo McIvor and McIvor Marketing (McIvor) countersued for defamation and tortious interference with business relations. The counterclaims arose from letters Local’s counsel sent to McIvor’s customers, attaching a temporary restraining order issued in the Harris County suit and asserting that the TRO barred McIvor from soliciting Local’s customers – a restriction the TRO did not actually contain, as it covered only employee solicitation and nondisclosure. Local moved to dismiss the counterclaims under Texas’s anti-SLAPP statute, the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The court grants the motion to dismiss.
Issues Presented to the Court. (1) Whether the TCPA applies to McIvor’s counterclaims as communications “pertaining to” a judicial proceeding; (2) if so, whether McIvor met its burden to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, a prima facie case on each essential element of defamation and tortious interference, particularly damages: and (3) whether McIvor’s defamation claim independently survived under a per se theory not requiring proof of damages.
Analysis and Holdings.
(1)With respect to the first TCPA issue, the court holds the TCPA applies because Local’s letters were “communications” that directly related to and concerned the Harris County law suit, citing its case number, attaching the TRO and describing its terms, thereby satisfying the TCPA’s “pertaining to” standard.
(2) Turning to McIvor’s TCPA burden on the defamation and tortious interference claims, the court found evidence of damages was essential to both counterclaims and that McIvor had failed to meet its burden. McIvor’s declaration that it “was damaged” was conclusory, and its evidence that it had spent time explaining the litigation to three customers, rather than pursuing other business, showed no resulting economic or noneconomic harm and, at most, established wasted time, which is not independently compensable.
(3) McIvor also failed to establish defamation per se, since a false statement that McIvor was enjoined from customer solicitation was not uniquely damaging to the marketing profession, especially compared with the undisputed truth that McIvor was enjoined from soliciting Local’s employees, and the letter did not accuse McIvor of criminal conduct.
(4) Because the two counterclaims failed at the prima facie stage, the court did not need to reach Local’s affirmative defense of judicial-proceedings immunity. The court grants Local’s motion to dismiss; an award of attorneys’ fees is mandatory under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE Sec. 27.009(a)(1), and Local’s request for $18,010 is unopposed and unchallenged as to reasonableness; fees are granted in that amount. The court declines to impose sanctions, finding no improper purpose behind the counterclaims. The TCPA’s discovery suspension is lifted, and a due date is set for any outstanding discovery responses.