Anthony Parker v. SCG-LH Murfreesboro, LP
M2021-00033-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Anthony Parker (pro se) sued SCG-LH Murfreesboro, Intown Suites, and manager Shaun Humphries claiming bedbug-related negligence, statutory landlord-tenant violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; he sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- Intown Suites and Humphries were ultimately dismissed without prejudice; SCG-LH (Appellee) remained and moved for summary judgment.
- Parker filed discovery requests and later asserted discovery responses were deficient and moved for sanctions; those discovery documents and the sanctions motions are not in the appellate record.
- Both parties filed competing motions for summary judgment; the trial court granted SCG-LH’s motion, denied Parker’s motion, and denied Parker’s sanctions request.
- Parker appealed, arguing the trial court failed to properly rule on his motion(s) for discovery sanctions. The appellate record lacked the discovery requests, responses, and most motions Parker relied on.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Parker failed to meet his burden to show abuse of discretion and failed to provide an adequate appellate record to review the sanctions claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Parker's motion(s) for discovery sanctions | Parker contends the trial court ignored or improperly denied sanctions for alleged deficient discovery responses and lack of cooperation | SCG-LH argued sanctions were unwarranted; also that Parker did not provide the discovery or motions in the record to support review | Affirmed — appellate court found no basis to overturn: abuse-of-discretion standard applies and Parker failed to provide the discovery record or otherwise show abuse |
| Whether the trial court erred by granting SCG-LH’s summary judgment | Parker asserted his submissions established no genuine dispute of material fact entitling him to judgment | SCG-LH argued Parker lacked evidence of required elements (negligence, IIED, punitive damages) and URLTA does not apply to hotel stays | Affirmed — trial court granted SCG-LH’s summary judgment; appellate decision focused on sanctions issue and record deficiencies rather than reweighing summary-judgment facts |
| Whether appellate court may consider documents attached only to appellate brief but not in record | Parker asked court to consider documents appended to his brief | SCG-LH relied on the trial-court record only | Not considered — court refused to consider materials not included in the official appellate record |
| Whether pro se status excuses compliance with briefing and record rules | Parker implicitly relied on pro se status for leeway | SCG-LH emphasized applicable rules and record duty | Rejected — pro se litigants get limited leeway but must follow substantive and procedural rules and supply an adequate record |
Key Cases Cited
- Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants remain subject to procedural and substantive rules)
- Lacy v. Mitchell, 541 S.W.3d 55 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (scope of leeway given to pro se litigants)
- Duke v. Duke, 563 S.W.3d 885 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018) (appellant’s duty to prepare an adequate record for meaningful appellate review)
- Jackson v. Aldridge, 6 S.W.3d 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (court cannot consider factual assertions not in the appellate record)
- Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate review limited to the record; appellant must provide adequate record)
- Jennings v. Sewell-Allen Piggly Wiggly, 173 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2005) (review constrained by the appellate record)
- Griffith Servs. Drilling, LLC v. Arrow Gas & Oil, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 376 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for discovery-sanctions rulings is abuse of discretion)
- Lyle v. Exxon Corp., 746 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. 1988) (abuse-of-discretion standard applied to discovery sanctions)
- White v. Vanderbilt Univ., 21 S.W.3d 215 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (defining abuse of discretion)
- In re NHC–Nashville Fire Litig., 293 S.W.3d 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (burden on party seeking to overturn discretionary ruling)
- Ballard v. Herzke, 924 S.W.2d 652 (Tenn. 1996) (party challenging discretionary ruling bears burden to show abuse of discretion)