Jesus Cajica Zermeno v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that complaints regarding communications of sharing and or using plaintiff’s information in enterprise and communications “aimed at luring” competitor’s employees were protected as “exercise of the right of association”
• stating that “[t]he linchpin” of “exercise of the right of association . . . is a ‘communication’”
• concluding “the district court erred in failing to dismiss [the plaintiff’s] claims to the extent founded on [the defendants’] 9 ‘communications’”
• rejecting attempts to limit the TCPA “communications” solely to those the First Amendment protects for to do so would read language into the statute that is not there
• finding “no difficulty” in concluding that the movant’s TCPA burden was established where the conversion and misappropriation causes of action “have a connection” with a communication related to free speech
• pointing out that whether the speech was constitutionally protected or not was not relevant to the movant’s initial burden, but rather only relevant to the “second part” of the analysis, in which the nonmovant must establish the claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).