The Austin Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court order denying Plaintiff’s TCPA motion to dismiss a motion for sanctions stemming from the filing of a lawsuit Plaintiff’s attorney allegedly knew was baseless.
Armando Lorenzo v. Sandoval & James, PLLC; Esteban Sandoval; Yudovich Yarrito; Afif Antonio Hid Velasco aka Afif Hid; and Hideal Group, LLC (No. 03-24-00071-CV; January 28, 2026) arose from a suit against a law firm and the firm’s case runner for barratry. The case runner responded with a claim for sanctions and fees, alleging that the suit was groundless. Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, arguing that the runner’s motion for sanctions was based on or in response to Plaintiff’s exercise of the right to petition. The runner argued that the TCPA didn’t apply to his motion for sanctions. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s TCPA motion. Plaintiff appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Ellis, the court of appeals affirmed. The outcome was controlled by SCOTX’s decision in Ferchichi v. Whataburger Rests., LLC, 713 S.W.3d 330 (Tex. 2025), which held that a motion for sanctions is not a “legal action” subject to dismissal under the TCPA. As SCOTX explained, “a motion for sanctions does not commence or amend a proceeding or a substantive legal claim. [] Instead, it is ‘based on conduct ancillary to the substantive claim in the case’ and cannot stand on [its] own.” Since a motion for sanctions doesn’t present a substantive underlying claim for relief, it does not meet the definition of “legal action.” Plaintiff argued that the runner’s counterclaim wasn’t a motion for sanctions, but a request for substantive relief. The court rejected this argument, holding that “[r]egardless of the title, the filing is based on conduct ancillary to the substantive claims in the case and could not have been brought on its own.” The court thus affirmed the trial court order denying Plaintiff’s TCPA motion to dismiss.
