Mailing adress:
2000 West Loop South, Suite 2200
Houston, Texas 77027

713.401.9901 phone
214.946.8433 fax

lhollingsworth@dpslawgroup.com

Lara Hollingsworth, Partner

= read publication
Publications & Presentations

Update: TCPA, Rule 91a, and the Defamation Mitigation Act

State Bar of Texas Advance Civil Trial, 2020

Equitable Relief at Trial and on Appeal

University of Texas School of Law 28th Annual Conference on State and Federal Appeals, 2018

When and How to Seek Equitable Relief

State Bar of Texas Litigation Section Report, The Advocate, 2017

Equitable Relief: How To Obtain It Or Defeat It

State Bar of Texas 30th Annual Advanced Civil Appellate Practice, 2016

Settlement on Appeal

University of Texas School of Law 23rd Annual Conference on State and Federal Appeals, 2013

= read opinion
Significant Cases

Clemens v. McNamee, 615 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2010)

The Fifth Circuit determined that Brian McNamee was entitled to judicial immunity for statements he made to the Mitchell Commission, which was hired by MLB to investigate steroid use in major league baseball.

Enter. Crude GP LLC v. Sealy Partners, LLC, 614 S.W.3d 283 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.)

The underlying case is an oil and gas dispute. another anti-slapp appeal. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court erred in denying Enterprise’s TCPA motion to dismiss as to several causes of action.

Ginn v. NCI Bldg. Sys., Inc., 472 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.)

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment against Ginn, who NCI Building Systems had sued for theft of trade secrets.

Montelongo v. Abrea, 622 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2021)

The underlying dispute involves over 300 plaintiffs suing Montelongo for fraud based on real estate investment educational seminars he sold to plaintiffs.  I was only involved on appeal with regard to the anti-slapp MTD:  The Texas Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals erred in concluding that Montelongo’s TCPA motion to dismiss was untimely.  The Court held that if a party amends a petition to add a cause of action, even if the underlying facts remain the same, the time period for filing a TCPA motion to dismiss as to the newly added claims is reset.

Reynolds v. Sanchez Oil & Gas Corp., 635 S.W.3d 636 (Tex. 2021)

The underlying case is an oil and gas dispute. Terra Energy filed a TCPA motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the motion to dismiss was untimely. However, the Texas Supreme Court remanded the case in light of the Court’s holding in Montelongo v. Abrea, 622 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2021).

Shillinglaw v. Baylor Univ., 05-17-00498-CV, 2018 WL 3062451 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 21, 2018, pet. denied)

The underlying case was a defamation action filed by a fired Baylor coach against several regents. The appeal involved, you guessed it, the anti-slapp MTD the trial court granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Baylor and the Regents’ TCPA motion to dismiss.

William Marsh Rice Univ. v. Refaey, 459 S.W.3d 590 (Tex. 2015)

The Supreme Court concluded that the court of appeals erred in dismissing for want of jurisdiction Rice University’s appeal. Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014, Rice University sought interlocutory review of the trial court’s denial of summary judgment based on official immunity.

Scroll to Top