TX Lawyer • 10 minutes ago
I haven't read the order yet, but will do so as soon as I post this. Procedurally speaking, CSI will now have 20 days to file a notice of appeal to the Austin Court of Appeals. Sometime thereafter, the clerk and court reporter from the trial court will file the clerk's record (i.e., pertinent filings in the case) and reporter's record (i.e., transcripts of any pertinent hearings on the motion and any exhibits that were admitted during those hearings). That's supposed to happen within 10 days after the notice of appeal, but it frequently slips some. Anyway, after those records are on file with the court of appeals, CSI will have 20 days to file its appellant's brief. Mrs. Rathbun's brief will be due 20 days after that, and CSI can file a shorter reply brief 20 days after that. The notice of appeal deadline cannot be extended, but all the briefing deadlines can be, and routinely are.
After the briefs are all filed, the court of appeals will set the case for oral argument, and sometime after that the court will issue its opinion. The losing party can then file a motion for rehearing, which will pretty much inevitably be overruled. After the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled, the losing party will have 45 days to file a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court. Notably, however, our Supreme Court only has limited jurisdiction to consider an appeal of an interlocutory order. Basically, it is only supposed to be able to take such appeals when there is a conflict among the justices of the court of appeals (i.e., one of the justices dissented from the majority opinion) or the opinion conflicts with a decision of another court of appeals on some point of law.
Interlocutory appeals are "accelerated," which means the deadlines are somewhat tighter than for regular appeals and they are supposed to take precedence on the court of appeals' docket. But "accelerated" does not mean "fast." I am aware of one other anti-SLAPP appeal in the Austin Court of Appeals which is also reasonably high-profile for this type of thing (I'm also passing acquaintances with a couple of the attorneys on the case, although I have no inside knowledge of it).
http://www.search.txcourts.gov...
As you'll see from that docket sheet, the notice of appeal was filed in August 2012. The briefing was complete in March 2013 (although strangely, they do not appear to have accelerated the appeal in that case). The case was argued in May 2013. And they're still waiting for an opinion. I would expect a similar timeline with CSI's appeal, maybe a bit faster because this one is a true interlocutory order instead of a final judgment. Rough guess? Expect an opinion early next year, with the appellate proceeding finally wrapping up with a denial of petition for review from the TX Supreme Court late next year.
FORTUNATELY, HOWEVER: An appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion DOES NOT STAY THE TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS. (I have seen some online commentators who claim otherwise, but I see no basis for that conclusion in the text of the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which is our name for the anti-SLAPP statute.) That means discovery should proceed apace (unless the appellate court grants a stay of discovery, which is possible but far from a slam dunk).
The awarding of costs to the plaintiff is incredible! I assume this means that Mosey can continue, and that CO$ doesn't have the option of crushing her with legal fees now. (I may not understand the situation, but it HAS to be good news.) Mosey RULES! I'm jumping over to the Bunker to get the story. What a happy Friday! Judge W. is coming through for justice!In a 25-page ruling, Comal County Judge Dib Waldrip today rejected Scientology’s ‘anti-SLAPP’ motion which had attempted to derail the harassment lawsuit of Bulverde, Texas resident Monique Rathbun.
http://tonyortega.org/2014/03/14/texas-judge-denies-scientologys-anti-slapp-motion-in-rathbun-suit/
Do a video! The only thing that would make this nicer would be to SEE and hear you enthusing in your wonderful way!Brace for Impact!
The very worst thing in this ruling is the finding that the Church is engaged in a commercial or business activity. Wow ! Major ! Whereas the judge's ruling is not inter-state it can be very persuasive.
All that 1st amendment hogwash to relentlessly run a crime wave as a BUSINESS or a Church that masquerades as a religion while acting like a BUSINESS...Game changer.
Brace for Impact!
The very worst thing in this ruling is the finding that the Church is engaged in a commercial or business activity. Wow ! Major ! Whereas the judge's ruling is not inter-state it can be very persuasive.
All that 1st amendment hogwash to relentlessly run a crime wave as a BUSINESS or a Church that masquerades as a religion while acting like a BUSINESS...Game changer.
Surely never ever in all eternity has the 'cherch' had a price list or 'discounts' for 'early payment' or 'advanced payments' . I bet NO one could ever find such printed material or emails? 
What are you kidding us Karen??
