Michael Joseph Bacsik v. Fred Britton, Charles Britton, and Autographs Ink, Inc. (No. 05-24-00934-CV; February 25, 2025) arose from a series of disputes over allegedly stolen sports trading cards. The problems began when Bacsik asked Fred Britton to value certain cards. When Fred returned the cards, Bacsik noticed that some were missing, including a Luka Dončic card. Apparently, Fred’s son, Charles, made off with Luka, for which he was charged with theft and subsequently pleaded guilty. Bacsik next sued Charles and Autograph for conversion and failure to return his proprty. He prevailed at trial and was awarded almost $2,000 for ten Mike Trout cards and another $35,000 against Autograph for keeping his stuff. Fred, Charles, and Autograph struck back, however, suing Bacsik for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Bacsik filed a TCPA motion to dismiss, which was overruled by operation of law. Bacsik appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Smith, the court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Bacsik argued that the trial court erred by denying his TCPA motion because Plaintiffs’ claims infringed his right of free speech in connection with a matter of public concern. Plaintiffs conceded that the TCPA applied to Bacsik’s defamation claims, not the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Plaintiffs further contended that none of the alleged defamatory communications with various third parties about the alleged thefts involved a matter of public concern. The court determined that Bacsik’s communications to third parties that Plaintiffs stole his cards, as well as those with Baylor University and another sports collectible business regarding Charles’s criminal charge and guilty plea, were in connection with matters of public concern (criminal acts) and that Bacsik met his burden to demonstrate that Plaintiffs’ legal action was based on or in response to his exercise of the right of free speech. As to the Bacsik’s communications to Fred and Charles threatening them over the stolen cards (the basis for the intentional infliction claim), the court went the other way. The trial court thus did not err in denying Bacsik’s TCPA motion as to those communications.
Moving on to whether Plaintiffs made a prima facie case on each of the elements of a defamation claim, the court focused on whether they presented clear and specific evidence of the falsity of Bacsik’s alleged statements to third parties that Plaintiffs stole his cards. Here the court ruled for Bacsik on the basis that Fred and Charles merely asserted that Bacsik’s communications were false without other evidence. The court then turned to Plaintiffs’ intentional infliction claims arising from Bacsik’s communications with Baylor and the other company. Bacsik argued that Plaintiff’s couldn’t establish that he acted “intentionally or recklessly in such an extreme or outrageous manner that his conduct proximately caused them severe emotional distress.” The court agreed, concluding that Fred and Charles failed to establish by clear and specific evidence that Bacsik’s communications were “extreme and outrageous.” The trial court thus erred by denying Bacsik’s TCPA motion on the part of the intentional infliction claims based on the communications with third paties. The court thus remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, including a determination of Bacsik’s attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions, if any. Plaintiffs only surviving claim, the intentional infliction claim based on Bacsik’s alleged threats to Fred and Charles, remained alive as well.
As we reported last week, Justice Lee filed a concurring opinion excoriating the routine pleading of intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. We will see whether this lawsuit hangs around long enough for the court to get a crack at that here.
