Bassam Issa v. Jack Benson, Sr., 420 S.W.3d 23

Issa sought rezoning for IHOP development in Chattanooga and met with Benson, who represented the area on the City Council.
During discussions, Issa threatened to donate to charity at closing and later warned of litigation if opposition continued.
Benson publicly asserted that Issa had attempted to bribe him to secure support for the rezoning.
City Council denied the rezoning after discussions among members.
Issa filed a defamation complaint in February 2012 alleging Benson's statements defamed him.
Trial court granted judgment on the pleadings, holding the statements were protected by legislative and litigation privileges; Issa appeals and the matter is affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Benson's statements to council members were protected by the legislative privilege	Issa argues the remarks were gratuitous and not within legislative scope	Benson's statements pertained to council matters and potential bribery, within legislative functions	Yes; legislative privilege applies to Benson's statements to council members
Whether Benson's statements at Glen Gene Deli were protected by the litigation privilege	Issa contends the deli statements were not within litigation privilege	Statements were preliminary to proposed litigation and protected by litigation privilege	Yes; statements were communications preliminary to proposed litigation and protected

Cornett v. Fetzer, 604 S.W.2d 62 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980) (absolute legislative privilege extends to subordinate bodies when within scope of authority)
Jones v. Trice, 360 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. 1962) (statements in judicial context are absolutely privileged)
Myers v. Pickering Firm, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 152 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (communications preliminary to litigation are absolutely privileged)
Harman v. Univ. of Tenn., 353 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for judgment on the pleadings and privilege considerations)