Opinion
05-21-00246-CV
04-25-2022
JOHN SAKYI, Appellant v. ABENA FOSUA SAKYI, Appellee
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-05853
Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Carlyle
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CORY L. CARLYLE, JUSTICE
John Sakyi appeals the trial court's order granting Abena Fosua Sakyi's motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001-.011. We affirm in this memorandum opinion.
John and Abena married in 2011. Abena filed for divorce in 2019, alleging that John was abusive during the marriage. Both John and Abena are involved in Christian ministry, and John alleges that Abena lied to members of his congregation about the abuse in an effort to recruit them to join a competing virtual church. While the divorce was pending in April 2020, John brought this case against Abena, who was then living in Illinois, asserting various claims based on her alleged false statements and recruitment efforts aimed at his congregation.
In June 2020, Abena filed a pro se document styled "Defendant's Special Appearance Challenging Personal Jurisdiction and Without Waiving Defendant's Plea to the Court's Jurisdiction, Defendant's General Denial." After obtaining counsel in December 2020, Abena filed a motion to dismiss John's claims under the TCPA, along with a motion seeking leave to file the motion to dismiss after the TCPA's sixty-day deadline had expired. See. id. § 27.003(b).
In her motion for leave, Abena argued that the TCPA gave the trial court the authority to extend the deadline for good cause. See id. She explained that she was representing herself pro se until December 2020, she was unaware of the TCPA's mechanism for dismissing meritless lawsuits, there had been almost no activity in the case since its inception, and extending the deadline would serve both judicial economy and the TCPA's statutory purpose of weeding out frivolous claims infringing on protected expression.
John did not file a response to the motion for leave, although he asserts on appeal that the trial court granted the motion without setting it for a hearing and thereby establishing a deadline for his response. In any event, the trial court set Abena's motion to dismiss for hearing on March 29, 2021, and John filed his written response to that motion a week before the hearing. In his response, John argued that the motion to dismiss should be denied as untimely, notwithstanding the trial court's order granting Abena leave to file it after the deadline.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the trial court explained its reasoning for granting Abena leave: "[U]nder the Texas Supreme Court's Emergency Orders I have the authority to extend whatever deadlines, and perhaps I should have made that clear when I signed your Motion for Leave. They did make some timeliness arguments, but I have whatever authority to extend deadlines that I see fit in the interest of justice." After further argument, the trial court granted Abena's TCPA motion, among other things.
On appeal, John argues that the trial court arbitrarily exceeded its authority under the supreme court's emergency orders to grant Abena the extension because there was no nexus between the pandemic and the need for an extension. But John did not raise that issue in the trial court. When the trial court explained that it was extending the deadline under the supreme court's emergency orders, John's only objection was that Abena did not seek an extension before the deadline expired. In fact, John's counsel specifically confirmed to the trial court that that was his only argument against granting the extension.
The Thirty-Third Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, 629 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. 2021), was in force when the trial court granted Abena's motion for leave on February 5, 2021. The Thirty-Sixth Emergency Order Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, 629 S.W.3d 897 (Tex. 2021), was in force when the trial court issued its order granting the motion to dismiss on March 30.
Because John's sole issue on appeal does not match his objection in the trial court, he has not preserved the issue for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); McPherson v. Lopez, No. 05-18-01504-CV, 2021 WL 1136760, at *4 (Tex. App.- Dallas March 25, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Complaints and arguments on appeal must correspond with the complaint made at the trial court level."). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
JUDGMENT
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that appellee ABENA FOSUA SAKYI recover her costs of this appeal from appellant JOHN SAKYI.