Lisa Mills is Attempting to Evict Scary Andrew Lehman from her Magnolia Residence

Defendant Lisa Mills’ Motion to Dismiss Under the Texas Citizens Participation Act

MAY 19, 2023 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: AUG. 4, 2023

NO MOVEMENT BY THE JUDGE SINCE JUNE
Lisa Mills is Attempting to Evict Scary Andrew Lehman from her Magnolia Residence – Laws In Texas https://t.co/jVYDckTE2L

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) August 22, 2023

To the Honorable Kristen Bays, District Judge:

Defendant Lisa Mills (“Mills”) files this Motion to Dismiss Under the Texas Citizens Participation Act:

Procedural Background and Introduction

1.                 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on April 3, 2023. Plaintiff never served Mills.

2.                 Mills filed her Original Answer on April 19, 2023.

3.                 Therefore, this Motion to Dismiss is timely. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.003(b).

4.                 Plaintiff misrepresented his income and other facts to Mills to induce her to lease her house to him in Magnolia.

Plaintiff has violated several provisions in the lease, including, without limitation, one provision stating that misrepresentations in applying for the lease constitute a default.

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023, after a trial, the Honorable Matt Masden, Precinct 5 Justice of the Peace, ordered Plaintiff to vacate the house and pay $1,800.00 in attorney fees to Mills.

Plaintiff still has not vacated the house.

5.                 Plaintiff has a variety of felony charges pending against him in Harris County, including possession of methamphetamine and aggravated assault. Plaintiff wears a court-ordered ankle bracelet as a condition of his bond.

During the eviction hearing, Mills testified, in part, that she fears Plaintiff. Plaintiff is scary. Plaintiff scares Mills. Plaintiff scares Mills’ neighbors. Mills does not want Plaintiff in her house any longer. For that reason, Mills has petitioned the government for help.

6.                 The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Mills, because all or some of Mills’ alleged actions were in exercise of her right to petition in a judicial proceeding, a right which the Texas Legislature protected when it enacted the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”), and her seeking law enforcement assistance for law violations at the house.

Specifically, in Plaintiff’s April 4, 2023, First Amended Verified Complaint (sic) for Damages & Request for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Petition”), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to prohibit Mills from filing police reports.

See Petition at paragraph 115.

Both based upon another instrument, Plaintiff’s May 4, 2023, Request for a Temporary Injunction, and statements Plaintiff made during the May 10 hearing before this Court, Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief to prevent Mills for proceeding in other courts to evict Plaintiff from the house.

Generally, Plaintiff wants this Court to enjoin Mills from taking any actions which “harass,” “annoy,” or “vex” Plaintiff.

See proposed injunction order, filed May 4, 2023, at paragraph D.

7.                 The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s claims seeking injunctive relief and all damages claims arising out of (a) allegations that Mills filed police reports complaining about Plaintiff and (b) allegations that Mills seeks to evict Plaintiff in other courts, because those actions, whether true or not, are ones seeking to exercise Mills’ right to petition the government.

Analysis and Authorities

8.                 Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in retaliation to Mills’ efforts to evict him from the house. Plaintiff’s damages seem to spring entirely from those efforts. Plaintiff’s retaliatory lawsuit is precisely the kind of legal action brought to silence or intimidate Mills in a judicial proceeding or government proceeding, which the Texas Legislature sought to foreclose in enacting TCPA. Id. § 27.002.

9.                 The Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s retaliatory claims, pursuant to TCPA. The Court should award Mills her attorney fees in defense of Plaintiff’s retaliatory and baseless cause of action.

10.             TCPA protects citizens from retaliatory lawsuits seeking to intimidate or silence them on matters of public concern. In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Tex. 2015). TCPA includes lawsuits. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.001(4)(A)(i).

11.             To have claims dismissed under a TCPA motion to dismiss requires a two-step analysis.

First, the defendant-movant must show “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the plaintiff’s claim “is based on, relates to, or is in response to the [movant’s] exercise of: (1) the right of free speech; (2) the right to petition; or (3) the right of association.” Id. § 27.003(a) The right to petition includes judicial proceedings. Id. § 27.001(4)(A)(i).

In this instance, Plaintiff’s complaints about Mills’ efforts to evict him through other courts and her filing police reports, if true, squarely fall within the right to petition under TCPA.

12.             Second, Plaintiff must then establish by clear and specific evidence a prima facie case for each essential element of the claim in question. Id. § 27.005(c).

13.             When determining whether to dismiss the legal action, the court must consider “the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts on which the liability or defense is based.” Id. § 27.006(a).

If the Court dismisses the claims, the Court must award the moving party its costs, attorneys’ fees, and other expenses incurred in defending the legal action. Id. § 27.009(a)(1). The court may also award additional sanctions. Id. § 27.009(a)(2).

14.             As TCPA applies to Plaintiff’s claims concerning evictions proceedings in other courts and filing police reports, TCPA mandates dismissal, unless Plaintiff can show “clear and specific” evidence to support each element of his claims against Mills.

Better Bus. Bureau of Metro. Houston, Inc. v. John Moore Serv., Inc., 441 S.W.3d 345, 355 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied).

To meet that standard, Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations or statements as to elements of a claim cannot defeat a motion to dismiss under TCPA. Tex. Civ. & Rem. Code § 27.005(c).

15.             Because Plaintiff’s claims, as explained above, fall squarely within TCPA and because Plaintiff cannot prove by clear and specific evidence each element of Plaintiff’s claims, the Court should dismiss the claims. Mills respectfully requests that this Court award her mandatory court costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other expenses incurred in defending this action as justice and equity may require.

TCPA Stays Discovery

16.             Section 27.003(c) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code stays discovery until the Court has ruled on this Motion to Dismiss.

Wherefore, premises considered, Defendant Lisa Mills respectfully prays that the Court dismiss this lawsuit, in whole or in part, award her costs, attorney fees, and sanctions, pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and grant such other and further relief to which Defendant Lisa Mills may show herself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ericyollick
Eric Yollick

State Bar Number 22160100
104 West Davis Street Conroe, Texas 77301
Telephone 281.363.3591
Email eyollick@yollicklawfirm.com

Attorney for Defendant Lisa Mills

Certificate of Conference

Plaintiff opposes this Motion.

/s/ericyollick/s/
Eric Yollick

Certificate of Service

I served this instrument on all parties by electronic service in accordance with Rules 21 and 21a on this 19th day of May, 2023, to:

Andrew Lehman
Lehmanlaw2002@gmail.com

/s/ericyollick/s/

Eric Yollick

NASSAU BAY v GALVESTON

Private Lawyer Chris Gregg for City of Nassau Bay protectin’ Thug Lehman not once, but twice, and continues to provide incomplete info.

A Private Law Firm who represents Galveston provided way more info. on the first PIA request
A Hat tip to Olsen n Olsen https://t.co/Zpwsbek8wc pic.twitter.com/EOhIPi9O7J

— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) July 27, 2023