RICHMOND, Texas — A Fort Bend County judge has withdrawn an order that had denied a series of motions filed by Republican county clerk nominee Tamara McFarlane in a defamation lawsuit brought by Republican Precinct 4 commissioner candidate Ken Mathews.
The Aug. 31 order, signed by 502nd District Court Judge Mark Hanna, had denied McFarlane’s special appearance, her motions to quash service, her motions to vacate prior orders, her request for a continuance, her motion to abate the case and her request for sanctions. It also stated that a temporary-injunction hearing could proceed as scheduled.
The order was withdrawn Sept. 2 after the court told McFarlane the hearing would be passed. A court filing states that McFarlane’s motions will be reheard and considered at a future date. The withdrawal means the Aug. 31 order should no longer be treated as the court’s final word on McFarlane’s motions. The underlying defamation lawsuit remains active.
The Aug. 31 hearing
The dispute came to a head the morning of the scheduled hearing.
The hearing was set for 9 a.m. Aug. 31. McFarlane, who is representing herself, notified the court and opposing counsel that morning that she could not attend because she had a sick child at home, and in the hour before the hearing filed a formal Motion for Continuance and to Reset Hearing, asking the court to remove the case from the docket and reset her special appearance and related motions for a date when she could appear. In it, McFarlane said she had contacted the court coordinator that morning seeking confirmation that the hearing was canceled or reset, and argued that proceeding without her could jeopardize her jurisdictional challenge. The court passed the hearing, and the Aug. 31 order was subsequently withdrawn.
Mathews’ attorney, Karan Joshi, has pushed back on that account. In a Sept. 3 email to the court coordinator, Joshi’s office said McFarlane has not appeared at a single hearing in the case, and cited an Aug. 30 email in which McFarlane wrote that because the hearing was “scheduled and not cancelled,” she planned to attend. Joshi’s office argues McFarlane understood the setting remained in place and that a court hearing cannot simply be abandoned through informal correspondence — that continuances must follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is a pattern Joshi described more broadly in a written statement: “Since this lawsuit was filed, Ms. McFarlane has repeatedly sought relief from the Court through her own motions, filings, and communications,” Joshi said. “She sought to quash service and abate the lawsuit, obtained a hearing on those requests, and then, less than an hour before the hearing, sought to postpone it. When the Court denied that request, she did not appear. A litigant cannot repeatedly invoke the Court’s authority to seek affirmative relief and then avoid the proceedings when the Court is ready to hear the very motions she filed.”
Joshi added that Mathews appeared as required and remained prepared to proceed with the litigation.
Joshi also addressed the order’s withdrawal directly. “Ken Mathews is deeply disappointed that the Court vacated the order,” Joshi said. “Ms. McFarlane has repeatedly invoked the election as a reason for not appearing at hearings in this case, including hearings involving relief she herself sought. We are concerned that removing the Court’s order eliminates an important safeguard and leaves the door open for the same defamatory conduct that forced Mr. Mathews to seek judicial protection in the first place. Mr. Mathews intends to continue pursuing every lawful avenue available to protect his reputation and hold Ms. McFarlane accountable.”
Representing herself throughout the case, without an attorney, McFarlane has generated an unusually heavy volume of motion practice for a civil case at this stage — special appearances, motions to quash, motions to vacate, a motion to abate, a motion for sanctions and now a contested motion for continuance, each requiring the court’s separate attention. That volume, combined with a same-morning cancellation of a scheduled hearing, is the kind of scheduling disruption attorneys say is rare in district court practice.
What Mathews alleges
Mathews filed the lawsuit in May, shortly before the Republican runoff election against Adam Schoof. The suit seeks damages over statements Mathews alleges were defamatory and politically damaging.
According to the petition, Mathews alleges McFarlane made statements on social media and in political group chats characterizing him as someone who followed “only fans girls,” a “Democratic plant” and someone working with Fort Bend Democrats. Mathews alleges those were false statements of fact rather than protected political opinion, and that McFarlane published them with actual malice.
He also alleges McFarlane filed a sworn complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission accusing him of failing to file a campaign treasurer appointment, even though, according to the petition, his appointment had been filed with Fort Bend County Elections on Nov. 24, 2025. Fort Bend County’s online campaign-finance database confirms a campaign treasurer appointment for “Kennith Mathews,” with Ken Mathews listed as treasurer, filed that date, along with campaign finance reports filed in February and May 2026.
The petition states the Ethics Commission later issued a notice of noncompliance and dismissed the complaint May 19 after procedural deficiencies were not cured. Mathews argues the dismissal shows the complaint was frivolous or made in bad faith, and the lawsuit asks the court to impose civil penalties against McFarlane under Texas Government Code Section 571.173.
McFarlane has disputed Mathews’ allegations through her own filings. The court has not ruled on the merits of the underlying defamation claims.
The magazine dispute
Mathews also sued Joseph Menslage, publisher of Katy Christian Magazine and Fort Bend Christian Magazine, over an article published May 15, 2026, titled “Transparency Questions Surround Ken Mathews Ahead of Precinct 4 Runoff.” The article questioned Mathews’ law-enforcement background, professional history, technology and IBM-related claims, campaign finances and a civil debt lawsuit.
The article said its review of publicly available records had not produced independently verifiable documentation for several of Mathews’ professional claims, while acknowledging that the absence of records did not conclusively disprove them. Mathews alleges the article nonetheless created a false and defamatory impression that he misrepresented his professional background.
The lawsuit focuses heavily on the magazine’s political endorsement. Katy Christian Magazine endorsed Schoof, Mathews’ runoff opponent, and published the article questioning Mathews shortly before the May 26 runoff. Mathews argues the endorsement is evidence of actual malice and that the article was intended to benefit Schoof. McFarlane also endorsed Schoof and distributed a text message to voters describing Mathews as a “Fake Republican” and “Democratic plant,” according to the lawsuit.
Menslage and the publications are accused of defamation, defamation by implication, false light invasion of privacy, business disparagement and violations of Texas election law. The lawsuit also argues the article improperly described the Ethics Commission complaint as placing Mathews under “additional scrutiny” without disclosing it had already been dismissed. A hearing in that matter is set for Oct. 5.
A political speech case
The lawsuit raises a question uncommon in local election coverage: where aggressive political advocacy ends and actionable defamation begins.
Mathews argues the defendants made factual assertions that could be proven false, rather than protected political rhetoric, and that the timing and context of the statements show actual malice. Because Mathews was a candidate for public office, his lawsuit acknowledges he is subject to the “actual malice” standard that applies to public officials and public figures in defamation cases — generally requiring proof that a defendant knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The court has not determined whether Mathews can meet that standard.
What happens next
The parties are now negotiating a new hearing date.
Joshi’s office has formally objected to reconsidering or re-urging McFarlane’s special appearance and related motions, and said that objection remains preserved for the record.
The withdrawal of the Aug. 31 order means the court has not made a final ruling on McFarlane’s procedural challenges, and the underlying defamation claims against both McFarlane and the magazine defendants remain unresolved.
Two nominees, one lawsuit
The lawsuit began during the final days of the Republican runoff, when Mathews faced Schoof for the Precinct 4 nomination. Mathews defeated Schoof with 63.42% of the vote and will face Democrat April Jones in the November general election for Precinct 4 commissioner. McFarlane won the Republican nomination for Fort Bend County clerk and will face Democrat Sonya Jones in November.
That leaves two candidates who appeared on the same Republican primary ballot, and who clashed publicly during the spring runoff, now facing each other in civil litigation while both campaign for seats on the November ballot.