Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the alternatives. I recall that sentiment any time I think about the Texas legislature. I also think of the words of another wise man, Obi-Wan Kenobi, when he described Mos Eisley spaceport to a young Luke Skywalker.
But sometimes the legislature surprises you and does something halfway sensical.
To wit: on February 28, 2019, Representative Jeff Leach (R-Plano) filed House Bill 2730, which would amend the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”). My Fivers already know the TCPA is the hottest thing in Texas litigation right now, and that it could use some amending.
The bill would make these fundamental changes:
- The TCPA would be limited to suits implicating the constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, or associate, as those rights are applied by state and federal courts—not as those rights were broadly defined in the original TCPA.
- The TCPA would not apply to suits to enforce non-competes or NDAs.
Notably, the bill does not exempt suits brought under the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) from application of the TCPA.
The bill would also make these less fundamental, but still important, procedural changes:
- Certain motions—including a motion to compel and a motion for summary judgment—would not trigger the right to file a TCPA motion to dismiss.
- The TCPA would expressly state that its purpose is procedural (to avoid application in federal court?)
- At least 14 days’ notice of a hearing on a TCPA motion would be required.
- The responding party could avoid the TCPA motion—and any award of attorney’s fees—by filing a nonsuit at least three days before the hearing.
- The statute would not apply to a compulsory counterclaim.
In departing employee litigation, the overall effect would be to shift the balance of power back towards companies who sue to stop their former employees from working for competitors.
More bills have since been filed. Senator Angela Paxton (R-McKinney) introduced SB 2162, which matches HB 2730. Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso) has offered a narrower bill, HB 3547, that would exclude trade secret and non-compete claims from the definition of “right of association.” And Rep. Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock) has offered House Bill 4575, another more limited rewrite, which would exempt DTPA and non-compete claims.
You can find a useful comparison chart of these bills here at Sean Lemoine’s “Anti-Slapp Texas” blog, which is a great source for TCPA developments generally.
How the Sausage Gets Made
No doubt these bills were in response to Five Minute Law’s call for reform in It’s Alive, It’s ALIVE! How to Kill a TCPA Motion in a Trade Secrets Lawsuit. Right?
More likely it was in response to the chorus of Texas appellate judges saying something has to be done to limit the TCPA it to its stated purpose of protecting constitutional rights. Nobody really intended the statute to apply to, for example, an ordinary departing employee lawsuit alleging breach of a non-compete and/or misappropriation of trade secrets.
On the other hand, I doubt much happens in the legislature unless either (1) some powerful donor or interest group is pushing for a change (I was going to say “special” interest group, but that would be somewhat redundant), or (2) some issue has personally irritated a legislator.
Then it hit me. Leach, a Republican representing parts of Collin County, practices complex commercial and civil litigation with Gray Reed. So I’ll bet he has some firsthand experience with TCPA motions.
Plus, as I speculated in Can You “Plead Around” the TCPA?, “[c]ompanies that want to enforce their non-competes and protect their (alleged) trade secrets are going to push back on broad application of the TCPA.” You had to think that business groups were going to get behind some effort to reign in the TCPA.
And right on cue, “Texans for Lawsuit Reform” circulated an 18-page report urging changes to the TCPA. See TLR Comes Out Swinging Against the Texas Anti-SLAPP. From the press I’ve seen, it appears that TLR is backing the more sweeping changes in the bills offered by Leach and Paxton.
Naturally, this has produced a counter-offensive from media interests and free speech groups, resulting in editorials like the Fort Worth Star-Telegram’s Your right to share your opinion is threatened by this proposed state law. The Star-Telegram prefers Moody’s narrower bill, warning that the broader rewrites “would allow anyone to file a lawsuit against a speaker or writer regardless of whether the claim is valid.” (Can you imagine?!)
For more articles, see Media Groups Come Out Swinging Against Changes to the Texas Anti-Slapp.
This is politics, of course, so you don’t always know exactly who is backing what and with what motives. But I can tell you that the opinions you find in the editorials have very little to do with the actual reality of TCPA practice. When practicing litigators who actually handle TCPA motions read the heated rhetoric, we just kind of shake our heads and chuckle.
If I Ran the Zoo . . .
Some have asked me, as a lawyer who handles a lot of departing employee litigation, what I think about the proposed legislative changes. But I’m a guy who thinks Texas should have a state income tax, so that tells you how much currency my opinions hold.
As with so many things in politics, I don’t even know where to begin.
If it were up to me, Texas would encourage more competition by only allowing non-competes in the sale of a business. This would mean less non-compete litigation, thus less billable work for me. On the other hand, employers would just shift to suing former employees for misappropriation of trade secrets—the “de facto” non-compete—so maybe my business wouldn’t dry up.
And if I made the rules, we wouldn’t have special-interest legislation that adopts a different set of rules for one particular type of litigation. So the TCPA (and a lot of other statutes) would have never passed in the first place.
But of course, we are not writing on a blank slate. In politics, as in law, you have to take the world as it is, not as you wish it to be. Considering Texas has a non-compete statute that allows reasonable non-competes and a TCPA that has the stated purpose of protecting constitutional rights, it does make sense to change the TCPA’s broad definitions and to carve non-compete suits out of the statute.
The Preemption Predicament
But does the TCPA apply to non-compete lawsuits in the first place? Section 15.52 of the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act states that its criteria for enforceability, procedures, and remedies for non-competes are exclusive and preempt other law. Citing this provision, some have argued that the non-compete statute already preempts the TCPA.
Similarly, Section 134A.007 of the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act states that it “displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary, and other law of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.” Does this mean that TUTSA preempts the TCPA?
Texas appellate courts have yet to rule on these preemption questions.
Ironically, if House Bill 2730 becomes law, it could imply that the non-compete statute never preempted the TCPA. If the non-compete statute already preempted the TCPA, one could argue, there would be no reason for the legislature to add an exemption for non-competes to the TCPA. After all, the law is a seamless web.
And what would passage of the legislation mean, if anything, for trade secrets claims?
As with so much legislation, the proposed changes to the TCPA in House Bill 2730 and the other bills would answer some questions but raise others. Every time the legislature messes with the civil justice system, there are unintended consequences. But this is how we do it.
As Obi-Wan might say, “Who is more foolish? The fool or the fool who follows him?”
*Update: HB 2730 later passed. See Turn Out the Lights, the Party’s Over: Texas Legislature Takes All the Fun Out of the TCPA.
Zach Wolfe (email@example.com) is a Texas trial lawyer who handles non-compete and trade secret litigation at his firm Zach Wolfe Law Firm.
These are his opinions, not the opinions of his firm or clients, so don’t cite part of this post against him in an actual case. Every case is different, so don’t rely on this post as legal advice for your case.
Leave a Comment