Quantcast

Affirmed: Denial of Union Pacific’s TCPA motion to dismiss toxic tort claims

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Tuesday, December 3, 2024

Affirmed: Denial of Union Pacific’s TCPA motion to dismiss toxic tort claims

State Court
General court 07

shutterstock.com

HOUSTON - The First Court of Appeals today affirmed a ruling denying Union Pacific Railroad’s motion to dismiss certain claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act. 

According to the opinion, Betty Chenier and a dozen other plaintiffs sued Union Pacific, alleging that the company failed to adequately warn them about cancer-causing soil and groundwater contaminants from its nearby facilities. 

Union Pacific and its predecessors maintained their plant operations for more than 50 years at a facility in the residential neighborhoods of Kashmere Gardens and the Fifth Ward. Union Pacific first used this facility to treat wood railroad ties with creosote, a toxic chemical.

The plaintiffs alleged that they sustained damages as a result and sought over $50,000,000 in damages, the opinion states. 

Union Pacific moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ property-damage claims for negligence, negligence per se, negligent misrepresentation, and nuisance under the TCPA. The company did not move to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fraud claim or any claims for personal injury damages, the opinion states. 

Union Pacific’s TCPA motion argued that the plaintiffs’ suit against it is based on or in response to Union Pacific’s exercise of its right of free speech and right to petition. 

Court records show the trial court denied Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the dispute failed to invoke TCPA protections.

“Union Pacific did not meet its burden to show that plaintiffs’ suit was based on or in response to its exercise of its right to free speech or to petition under the TCPA,” the opinion states. “Thus, the trial court did not err in denying Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss. We affirm.” 

The Houston law firm of Baker Wotring represents Union Pacific. 

Stephens Reed & Armstrong in Pearland represents the plaintiffs. 

Case No. 01-21-00073-CV

More News