“We hold that an amended or supplemental pleading that asserts the same legal claims or theories by and against the same parties and based on the same essential facts alleged in a prior pleading asserts the same ‘legal action’ to which the sixty-day period previously applied and thus does not trigger a new sixty-day period for filing a dismissal motion. But to the extent an amended or supplemental pleading either (1) adds a new party or parties, (2) alleges new essential facts to support previously asserted claims, or (3) asserts new legal claims or theories involving different elements than the claims or theories previously asserted, the new pleading asserts a new legal action and triggers a new sixty-day period as to those new parties, facts, or claims.” Montelongo v. Abrea, No. 19-1112 (April 30, 2021).

Speech: “Given the ‘in the marketplace’ modifier, the TCPA’s reference to ‘a good, product, or service’ does not swallow up every contract dispute arising from a communication about the contract. By referring to communications made in connection with goods, products, or services ‘in the marketplace,’ the definition confirms that the right of free speech involves communications connected to ‘a matter of public concern.'” Therefore. “[a] private contract dispute affecting only the fortunes of the private parties involved is simply not a ‘matter of public concern’ under any tenable understanding of those words” in the TCPA.

Petition: “The filings by the Ranch in this lawsuit and in the administrative proceeding before the Railroad Commission were an exercise of the right to petition as defined by the TCPA. The Operator’s counterclaim premised on those filings is therefore based on, related to, or in response to the Ranch’s exercise of the right to petition.” Creative Oil & Gas LLC v. Lona Hills Ranch LLC, No. 18-0656 (Dec. 20, 2019).