Pinghua Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp.

29 Citing cases

  1. Totalgen Servs. v. Thomassen Amcot Int'l, LLC

    No. 02-20-00015-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 21, 2021)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the TCPA did not apply to a breach-of-contract claim premised on disclosure of confidential information in conjunction with the sale of power generators because "the communications at issue involved nothing more than an exclusively private, arm's-length transaction between private parties involving confidential and proprietary information about the seller and equipment," and "nothing in the alleged communications addresse[d] a public component or the bigger picture of power generation generally"

    Such an award is entirely discretionary if the trial court finds that the motion is frivolous or solely intended to delay. Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.). "In the absence of a finding that the motion to dismiss was 'filed with the sole intention of delaying the proceedings,' 'an award of attorneys' fees is not authorized by the statute.'"

  2. Richard Gehrke & Pac. Cos. v. Merritt Hawkins & Assocs.

    No. 05-19-00026-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 17, 2020)   Cited 3 times

    We review de novo the trial court's ruling on a TCPA motion to dismiss. Pinghua Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.). Our review entails considering, in the light most favorable to the non-movant, the pleadings and any supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts on which the claim or defense is based.

  3. Ostteen v. Holmes

    No. 05-23-01150-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 22, 2024)

    Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2019, no pet.). "Frivolous" is not defined in the TCPA, but courts have noted it contemplates that "a claim or motion will be considered frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact and lacks a legal basis or legal merit."

  4. Bookout v. Shelley

    No. 02-22-00055-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 23, 2022)   Cited 11 times
    Recognizing trial court was in best position to evaluate circumstances in determining whether to award attorney's fees under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 27.009(b)

    Sullivan, 551 S.W.3d at 857; see Caliber, 591 S.W.3d at 243 (following Sullivan); Pinghua Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2019, no pet.) (same)

  5. Keane Frac, LP v. SP Silica Sales, LLC

    608 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. App. 2020)   Cited 21 times
    Reversing fees award based on trial court's frivolity finding because "there was at least a colorable basis in law and fact" for TCPA motion due to "unclear state of the law at the time" appellant filed motion because supreme court had not yet decided Creative Oil & Gas

    Generally, we review a trial court's decision to award attorney's fees for an abuse of discretion. Sullivan v. Tex. Ethics Comm'n , 551 S.W.3d 848, 857 (Tex. App.—Austin 2018, pet. denied) ; seeLei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp. , 578 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.) ("An attorney's fees award under section 27.009(b) is entirely discretionary and requires the trial court to find the motion was frivolous or solely intended to delay."). The TCPA does not define "frivolous."

  6. Garrison Inv. Grp. LP v. Lloyd Jones Capital, LLC

    No. 02-19-00115-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 14, 2019)   Cited 3 times
    Affirming denial of TCPA motion when communications underlying claims were not founded on character of facility's HUD-insured mortgage

    Simply because HUD insured Overlook's mortgage, which was later assumed by Garrison, does not transform the private business negotiations and transactions underlying LJC's claims into a matter of public concern: "[W]hat breach of contract [or fraudulent-inducement] action would not find its genesis in communication between the parties? And to be actionable, how would such communication not also touch upon the economic well-being of the parties?" Id.; see Pinghua Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 715 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, no pet.). And the fact that Atlas Point was marketed to active senior adults does not mean that LJC's claims involve a public concern.

  7. Jones v. Pierce

    No. 01-23-00187-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 16, 2023)   Cited 2 times

    We review the trial court's decision to award attorney's fees under the TCPA for an abuse of discretion. Sullivan v. Tex. Ethics Comm'n, 551 S.W.3d 848, 857 (Tex. App.-Austin 2018, pet. denied); see also Pinghua Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2019, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or unreasonably or without regard to guiding principles.

  8. Six Bros. Concrete Pumping, LLC v. Tomczak

    No. 01-21-00161-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 29, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Courts that have addressed this issue have considered the TCPA's text, and dictionary definitions, and they have concluded that a TCPA motion to dismiss is frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact and lacks a legal basis or legal merit. Id. at 433; see Marrujo, 2020 WL 7062318, at *11; Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2019, no pet.); Caliber Oil & Gas, LLC v. Midland Visions 2000, 591 S.W.3d 226, 243 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2019, no pet.); Sullivan, 551 S.W.3d at 857.

  9. Dyer v. MEDOC Health Servs.

    No. 05-21-00433-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2022)

    We review the decision to award costs and attorney's fees under TCPA section 27.009(b) for abuse of discretion. Pinghua Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2019, no pet.). We review the amount of fees for legal sufficiency of the evidence.

  10. Six Bros. Concrete Pumping v. Tomczak

    No. 01-21-00161-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 2, 2022)

    Courts that have addressed this issue have considered the TCPA's text, and dictionary definitions, and they have concluded that a TCPA motion to dismiss is frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact and lacks a legal basis or legal merit. Id. at 433; see Marrujo, 2020 WL 7062318, at *11; Lei v. Nat. Polymer Int'l Corp., 578 S.W.3d 706, 717 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2019, no pet.); Caliber Oil & Gas, LLC v. Midland Visions 2000, 591 S.W.3d 226, 243 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2019, no pet.); Sullivan, 551 S.W.3d at 857.