An unpublished opinion was handed down by the 9th District Court of Appeals on January 16, 2025 upholding the dismissal of claims for defamation, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy brought by the parents of a student that was arrested and expelled from a school following allegations by other students that he threatened to shoot up the school and shoot other students.
The TCPA is meant “to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §27.002. Under the TCPA, a party may move to dismiss a “legal action” that is “based on or is in response to a party’s exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association[.]”
The TCPA defines the “exercise of the right of free speech” as “a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §27.001(3). The TACP further defines a “matter of public concern” as a statement or activity regarding … (B) a matter of political, social, or other interest to the community; or (C) a subject of concern to the public.” Id. §27.001(7).
In Crum v. Drake, the fact pattern plays out like a coming of age high school movie involving alleged “mean girls” bullying an “odd” boy, reportedly made fun of him from being a male dancer, and would egg him on allegedly “in an attempt to gain a reaction or cause [the boy] to make a threat toward them so they could report it to the administration.” One of the alleged “mean girls” accused “[the boy] of threatening to shoot her and memorialized it by taking a Snapchat photo with friends where at least one of them held up a finger gun with Charlie in the background[.]” There was also an allegation that the boy made a “kill list” that was posted on Facebook by the parents of one of the students attending the school.
Despite the boy allegedly stating that any threats should have been known to be “nonsense,” the boy was ultimately arrested and expelled from the school. The boy then filed suit for allegedly ruining his life against one of the “mean girls” and her mother. However, the defendants sought dismissal under the TCPA arguing that threats to shoot students and shoot up the school was a matter of public concern and therefore, the report to the school of the threats was protected. The trial court granted the motion and the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal finding that threats of school shootings was a matter of public concern. The opinion is unreported and therefore, has limited authority. However, the opinion highlights a little known by powerful statute in Texas in an area that seems to be an ever growing concern – retaliatory lawsuits filed against people for posts they made on various social media platforms. The full opinion can be found at: Crum v. Drake, No. 09-24-00087-CV, 2025 WL 243026, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Jan. 16, 2025, no pet. h.).
###
Christopher Chapaneri a distinguished Lydecker attorney with extensive expertise in civil litigation, construction defect, premises liability, amusement park litigation, commercial motor vehicle/trucking, employment law, and environmental litigation—including mold exposure and vegetation management/overspray matters. Chapaneri also has a robust appellate practice, having successfully handled cases before the Texas Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In addition, Chapaneri brings substantial experience in handling high exposure and high-risk cases, further strengthening Lydecker’s ability to serve clients across multiple industries in Texas and beyond. Chapaneri also provides services in the State of Oklahoma.
