EDINBURG — An attorney for Hidalgo County GOP Chair Adrienne Peña-Garza argued before a judge Tuesday about why she should not be involved in the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against her brother, Aron Peña III.
A lawsuit filed against Peña III in October alleges he sexually assaulted a woman in July and claims Peña-Garza aided and abetted his behavior.
However, the attorney for Peña III and Peña-Garza, Jason Davis, argued that under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, the claims against Peña-Garza should be dropped.
Tuesday’s hearing mainly centered around Peña-Garza’s motion to dismiss as opposed to any motions filed by her brother, though Davis pushed back at allegations hurled during the hearing against Peña III.
Arguing a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, Davis said Peña-Garza was only being sued because of her association with her brother and because of her position as the chair of the Hidalgo County GOP.
“It is a political hack job,” Davis told state District Judge Mario E. Ramirez Jr. during Tuesday’s hearing.
The TCPA is meant to protect people’s right to petition, speak freely and associate freely by allowing them the opportunity to have a lawsuit dismissed if the lawsuit infringes on those rights.
The allegations laid out in the lawsuit stem from an alleged incident in which Peña III allegedly assaulted Cadence Vaughan, a recent high school graduate involved in the Hidalgo County Teenage Republicans.
She alleges Peña III touched her thigh and forcefully kissed her when driving her and a friend home from a political function in July.
After sexual harassment allegations surfaced, Pena III resigned in September from the campaign of then-U.S. Rep. Mayra Flores. He denied the allegations and said he resigned due to health reasons.
Davis said the claim that Peña-Garza aided and abetted her brother’s alleged assault was based on her having allegedly appointed Peña to the Hidalgo County Vacancy Committee.
“They allege that my client’s ‘appointment’ of her brother to a position in a local party. That’s the basis for suing Adrienne Peña in this case,” Davis said. “On its face, it affects the right of association.”
Further, Davis said it was not Peña-Garza who appointed him to the position.
The attorney representing the young woman who filed the sexual assault claim, Javier Peña, said the TCPA didn’t apply in this case because this was a case in which there was bodily injury.
“Assaults are causes of action for bodily injury,” Javier Peña said. Davis, though, said his client did not claim bodily injury in the original petition and only claimed bodily pain in the amended petition.
Javier Peña added they are not suing Peña-Garza for association but for allegedly protecting her brother when the allegations of assault occurred.
“She did nothing to protect those little girls,” Javier Peña said. “In fact, she continued to order him to go to these organizations despite knowing that he was abusing little girls.”
He also disputed that the case was political at all, pointing out that everyone involved is a member of the GOP.
Davis also voiced objection to an affidavit signed by Brandy Perez, a friend of Vaughan’s who allegedly rode with Peña III and Vaughan the day of the alleged assault. According to the account laid out in the lawsuit, Pena III insisted on dropping off Perez at home first that day.
Perez’s affidavit, Davis said, should be stricken from the record because she wasn’t disclosed as a witness and because Davis said she couldn’t have personal knowledge of the incident since she wasn’t there when it happened.
Javier Peña, though, argued that Perez did have personal knowledge, not of the alleged incident, but of Peña-Garza being alerted of Vaughan’s allegations.
“She was at the meeting, she’s the one who spoke to Adrienne and it says that in her affidavit,” Javier Peña said.
He said Perez was the one who had that conversation with Peña-Garza and alluded to the existence of a recording of that conversation.
“(Peña-Garza) knew about it, she did nothing,” Javier Peña said.
Davis said that when Perez writes about having confronted Peña-Garza, Perez doesn’t mention when that occurred or the circumstances surrounding it.
“It is a sad attempt at just character assassination that’s cloaked, unfortunately, in the judicial immunity so that she can’t be sued for defamation for saying these things,” Davis said. “But even on their face, judge, there’s no evidentiary basis, there’s no personal knowledge, there’s a lack of foundation.”
The judge did not make a ruling on the motion to dismiss on Tuesday.
