Opinion
No. 05-14-00188-CV
08-14-2017
EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY, ROBERT W. CAUDLE, AND RICKY STOWE, Appellants v. TRAVIS G. COLEMAN, Appellee
On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-12563
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
Before Justices Lang-Miers, Brown, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Brown
This case is before us on remand from the Texas Supreme Court. Travis G. Coleman sued his former employer, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company, and two of its employees, Robert W. Caudle and Ricky Stowe, for defamation and other related causes of action. Appellants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, specifically finding that the Act did not apply to the communications forming the basis of Coleman's claims. In our original opinion, we agreed with the trial court. The supreme court disagreed, holding that the Act applied because the alleged communications were made in connection with a matter of public concern. The court remanded the case to us for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, including consideration of whether Coleman met his burden to establish a prima facie case for each essential element of his claims.
In their motion to dismiss, appellants contended the Act applied and the trial court was required to dismiss Coleman's lawsuit 1) because Coleman could not meet his burden of establishing a prima facie case on each element of his claims, and 2) because appellants established the elements of one or more of their affirmative defenses. In response to the motion to dismiss, Coleman asserted that the Act did not apply. Alternatively, he asserted that he established a prima facie case on his causes of action, that appellants failed to meet their burden regarding their affirmative defenses, and that the Act as applied to him violates the open courts provision of the Texas Constitution. The trial court denied appellants' motion to dismiss on the express ground that the Act did not apply to the communications at issue.
Because the trial court found the Act did not apply, it did not consider whether Coleman established a prima facie case or whether appellants established the elements of an affirmative defense, issues which were predicated on finding the Act applied. To be reviewed by an appellate court, issues must have been actually presented to and considered by the trial court. Daughety v. Nat'l Ass'n of Homebuilders of the U.S., 970 S.W.2d 178, 182 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.); de Monet v. PERA, 877 S.W.2d 352, 361 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1994, no writ). "The ends of justice are best served by affording the trial court the opportunity for review and decision." de Monet, 877 S.W.2d at 361 (quoting State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. S.S., 858 S.W.2d 374, 382 (Tex. 1993) (Phillips, C.J., concurring)). Because the trial court did not consider and rule on the remaining issues in this case, we will not review them for the first time on appeal. See id.; cf. Fawcett v. Grosu, 498 S.W.3d 650, 656-58 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied) (court's order denying motion to dismiss under Chapter 27 did not specify grounds for denial). To do so in this case would usurp the trial court's authority to evaluate and rule on the issues before it and would deny this Court the benefit of the trial court's decision. See Daughety, 970 S.W.2d at 182; de Monet, 877 S.W.2d at 361.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order denying the motion to dismiss and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE 140188F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-12563.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown, Justices Lang-Miers and Schenck participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the trial court's January 29, 2014 order is REVERSED and this cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ORDERED that appellants EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY, ROBERT W. CAUDLE AND RICKY STOWE recover their costs of this appeal from appellee TRAVIS G. COLEMAN. Judgment entered this 14th day of August, 2017.