The threshold question in Ruff v. Ruff was the timeliness of a TCPA motion to dismiss:

“Mike argues that Suzann’s earlier petitions sought relief based on a suit to quiet title while in the seventh amended petition, ‘[s]he abandoned the quiet title claim and now seeks declaratory relief interpreting the [probate court judgment]. The seventh petition is a new legal action seeking new declaratory relief.’”

After examining a redlined comparison of the relevant pleadings, the Fifth Court found the motion untimely, concluding that “[t]his is essentially the same claim re-alleged repeatedly over two years in the subsequent amendments to the petition,” and that as a result:

“Mike has not identified on appeal any allegations in the seventh amended petition that added a new party, alleged new essential facts to support previously asserted claims, or asserted new legal claims or theories involving different elements than the claims or theories previously asserted.”

No. 05-21-00157-CV (mem. op.) applying Montelongo v. Abrea, 622 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2021)).

 

The post TCPA Motion Not Timely appeared first on 600 Commerce.