Public Statement Regarding Pending Civil Litigation
The District is providing the following information to help residents understand the pending civil litigation and distinguish the allegations actually presented to the courts from characterizations that have circulated in the community.
Purpose of the Pending Litigation
The lawsuit was filed in response to conduct that the District and members of its Board believed went far beyond ordinary disagreement, criticism, or participation in public meetings. Rather, the suit alleges that the Defendants in the case have so maligned and affirmatively interfered with the District’s contractors that the District has been seriously hampered in conducting the operations necessary to serve the citizens. The suit further alleges that the Defendants have assaulted, constrained, and even injured board members. It also alleges that the District’s board members, contractors, and staff have been adversely affected by a Defendant’s false police report. While not part of the suit’s allegations, the Defendants have also cost the District extensively with repetitive requests for information. The lawsuit concerns alleged conduct directed toward District officials, District operations, and the District’s contractual relationships.
The District recognizes and respects the rights of residents to speak during public-comment periods, criticize District decisions, communicate with elected officials, and engage in protected political advocacy. That is not what this suit is about. The lawsuit was not filed because residents disagreed with the Board, criticized the District, or expressed opposition to District policies. It was filed because of activities that affirmatively harm the District, its contractors, staff, and board members and inhibit the District from serving the public.
Claims Asserted
The pending litigation has involved several distinct causes of action.
Tortious interference with existing contracts
This claim is based on allegations that Defendants willfully and intentionally interfered with the District’s contractual relationships with its contractors through physical and verbal confrontations, threats, and other conduct that interfered with the contractors’ performance of their contractual duties. Although the trial court granted Defendants’ TCPA motions to dismiss the tortious-interference claim in September 2025, the District appealed that ruling, and the dismissal of the tortious interference claim is currently pending before the Third Court of Appeals. Thus, the trial court’s dismissal is not the end of the matter; the District is seeking appellate review of that ruling.
Assault and false imprisonment
These legal claims concern whether the particular conduct alleged in the pleadings constituted an actionable assault or unlawfully restrained a person’s liberty. These are not claims that a person committed a tort merely by frowning, making hand gestures, taking a photograph, criticizing the District, or otherwise engaging in ordinary public participation. Defendants have disputed these claims and sought dismissal. The trial court denied Defendants’ TCPA motions to dismiss the assault and false imprisonment claims in January 2026. Defendants appealed that ruling, and the denial of Defendants’ motions to dismiss is currently pending before the Third Court of Appeals.
The District’s Commitment to Transparency
The District is providing this information because residents deserve an accurate understanding of significant litigation involving their local government. The District will continue to provide legally permissible information concerning the status of the case while respecting the court’s authority to resolve the parties’ disputed claims.
Nothing in this statement should be understood as a determination of liability. The allegations in the pending litigation remain disputed, and the parties are entitled to have the remaining issues resolved through the judicial process.