HOUSTON — An appellate court has decided in two cases involving a reality television participant who alleged she was sexually assaulted while filming the fifth season of "Love is Blind."
In one of the cases, Kinetic Content appealed the trial court's denial of its special appearance in a lawsuit filed by Tran Dang, a Houston resident.
Kinetic produces reality-based media content and was involved in the production of the fifth season of "Love is Blind."
Dang alleged she was sexually assaulted by another participant, Thomas Smith, during filming in Mexico, and that Kinetic and Delirium TV failed to address her complaints adequately, according to the opinion issued on May 9 by the First District of Texas Court of Appeals.
Kinetic argued that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over it because it was not directly involved in Dang's recruitment or employment, and it maintained limited contacts with Texas.
However, Dang asserted that Kinetic actively recruited her and Smith in Houston and that significant portions of the show were filmed there.
The court considered Kinetic's contacts with Texas and the burden imposed on it by litigating in a foreign jurisdiction. It found that although Kinetic's burden was minimal, Texas had a substantial interest in adjudicating the dispute, given that the alleged tort occurred at least in part in Texas.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of Kinetic's special appearance regarding Dang's false imprisonment and negligence claims. However, it reversed the denial regarding Dang's assault claims, finding that Kinetic's involvement in those claims did not justify Texas jurisdiction.
The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.
In the other case, Kinetic appealed a ruling from the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Dang's motion for sanctions under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA).
The central question is whether Dang's motion for sanctions falls under the TCPA's definition of a "legal action," the opinion states.
The TCPA aims to protect constitutional rights while allowing the dismissal of meritless lawsuits.
Kinetic argues that Dang's motion for sanctions qualifies as a "legal action" under the TCPA.
However, the court disagrees, emphasizing that the right to impose sanctions belongs to the court, not the party.
Rule 13 allows courts to sanction parties for improper conduct, indicating that it's not an assertion of an existing right by the party, the court states. Thus, it does not add or amend a claim for relief, as required by the TCPA's definition of a "legal action."
"Moreover, an interpretation of 'legal action' that includes Rule 13 motions for sanctions would require parties 'to engage in litigation under the TCPA, including the automatic stay of all proceedings when a motion to dismiss under the TCPA is filed and the possibility of an interlocutory appeal if the motion to dismiss is denied,' and 'would at least ‘lessen’ the remedies available to a party to address' abuse of the pleading process during the course of litigation," the opinion states.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Kinetic's TCPA motion to dismiss. Since Dang's motion for sanctions is not a "legal action" under the TCPA, Kinetic failed to meet its initial burden, and further analysis of TCPA's burden-shifting process is unnecessary.
Dang's attorney declined to comment on the appellate court ruling.
First District of Texas Court of Appeals case numbers: 01-23-00443, 01-23-00444