Articles Posted in Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA)

While a plaintiff faced with a TPPA petition to dismiss could not make out a prima facie case for his false light invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, his defamation claim related to an allegedly false Title IX rape complaint was allowed to proceed.

In Doe v. Roe, No. M2023-00045-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2024), plaintiff had filed suit against defendant based on defendant’s allegations that plaintiff raped her on a college campus. Plaintiff’s complaint included claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on defendant’s statements to friends and family, postings on social media, and filing of a Title IX complaint.

After the complaint was filed, defendant moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (“TPPA”). The trial court denied the petition, finding the TPPA inapplicable to this case. In a first appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that defendant’s “filing of a Title IX complaint fell within the scope of the TPPA.” The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court “for a determination regarding whether there is a prima facie case for [plaintiff’s] claims against [defendant] insofar as they pertain to her Title IX complaint…” On remand, the trial court granted the TPPA petition to dismiss the false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims connected to the Title IX filing, but it denied dismissal of the defamation claim. This appeal followed, where the trial court ruling was affirmed.

A claim that asserted defendant attorneys acted in their own self-interest when they represented another party in multiple lawsuits against plaintiffs fell within the ambit of the Tennessee Public Protection Act.

In Garner v. Thomason, Hendrix, Harvey, Johnson & Mitchell, PLLC, No. W2022-01636-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2024), plaintiffs had been involved in over ten years of trust litigation. Defendant attorneys represented plaintiffs’ brother in the filing of these trust lawsuits against plaintiffs, and plaintiffs were successful in defending all the claims.

After plaintiffs and the brother apparently reconciled, plaintiffs filed this suit against the attorneys who filed the trust lawsuits on the brother’s behalf. Plaintiffs alleged that the attorneys acted in their own self-interest hoping to eventually recover a contingency fee, that they mislead the brother, that they threatened the brother to continue the litigation, and that plaintiffs were accordingly damaged. (Note that the brother filed a very similar lawsuit at the same time, wherein the Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled that a legal malpractice claim can fall within the TPPA).