Tennessee Public Protection Act

December 20, 2024

TPPA petition to dismiss not affected by nonsuit where defendant also filed motion for summary judgment.

Where defendant had filed both a TPPA petition to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff was not allowed to voluntarily dismiss the action against that defendant.

In Garramone v. Dugger, No. M2023-00677-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2024), plaintiff filed a false light invasion of privacy claim against defendants based on events that occurred when plaintiff ran for re-election as a city commissioner. According to plaintiff, defendants were involved in creating a website that alleged plaintiff had been given a free pass on drinking and driving and speeding because she was a commissioner.

Defendant Curtsinger and Defendant Patrick both filed petitions to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. Defendants asserted that the claim was related to their exercise of free speech. Defendant Patrick also filed a motion for summary judgment.

November 15, 2024

Malicious prosecution claim dismissed under TPPA.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

Where plaintiff did not have evidence that an ethics complaint filed with the real estate commission by defendant was decided on the merits and due to plaintiff’s innocence, plaintiff’s malicious prosecution claim should have been dismissed pursuant to defendant’s TPPA petition.

In Gersper v. Turner, No. M2022-01136-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2024), plaintiff and defendant owned condos in the same building. When defendant resigned from the building’s board after opposition from several owners, plaintiff took his seat. While campaigning to retain the seat, plaintiff, who was a realtor, made a video showing current issues with the building. Plaintiff circulated the video to other board members, but defendant also eventually saw the video.

Based on this video, defendant filed a complaint with the Tennessee Real Estate Commission, asserting among other things that plaintiff was hurting the value of the property. The Commission sent defendant a letter two months later stating that the complaint had been reviewed by the legal staff and presented to the Commission, and “[t]he decision has been taken to close the complaint with no action.”

November 1, 2024

Tennessee Supreme Court rules that TPPA petition does not affect right to nonsuit.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has affirmed that the filing of a TPPA petition to dismiss by a defendant does not bar a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing a case.

In Flade v. City of Shelbyville, — S.W.3d —, No. M2022-00553-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2024), plaintiff filed suit against several defendants asserting claims for libel, intentional interference with business, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. These claims were based on statements allegedly made by defendants about plaintiff on social medial and through text messages.

In addition to motions to dismiss, two defendants filed petitions to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”). Before the scheduled hearing for these petitions, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The trial court dismissed the matter without prejudice pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01, and it denied defendants’ “Notice of Intent to Proceed” with their TPPA petitions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the allowance of the nonsuit and the refusal to consider defendants’ TPPA petitions thereafter, and in this opinion, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed this ruling.

May 22, 2024

TPPA may apply to legal malpractice claims.

by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.

The Tennessee Public Protection Act applies to legal malpractice claims in Tennessee in certain circumstances.

In Cartwright v. Hendrix, No. W2022-01627-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 15, 2024), defendants represented plaintiff in multiple lawsuits related to the administration of a trust. Defendants worked for plaintiff on a contingency fee basis.

After over ten years of unsuccessful litigation on the trust, plaintiff filed this legal malpractice case against defendants. Plaintiff asserted many theories, alleging that he did not know how many suits were filed; that defendants advanced a scheme to ultimately collect a contingency fee from him; that defendants continued to file claims after admitting that such claims were time-barred; and that defendants misled plaintiff to believe he was having success in the trust litigation.