Deborah Lacy v. Hallmark Volkswagen Inc. Of Rivergate, M2016-02366-COA-R3-CV

On March 29, 2014, Deborah Lacy purchased a vehicle at Hallmark Volkswagen; salesmen Cian Rourke and sales manager Scott Masters were present. Lacy later alleged Masters assaulted and battered her at the end of the transaction.
Lacy sued Hallmark Volkswagen, Hallmark Jeep, James Cameron III, and Masters in Davidson County circuit court (case later transferred to the Sixth Circuit); Cameron was later dismissed from the appeal.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits from Masters and Rourke stating the interaction was a friendly handshake and denying any threats or offensive conduct.
Defendants argued their affidavits negated essential elements of Lacy’s assault and battery claims; under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 the burden shifted to Lacy to produce specific contrary facts.
Lacy, proceeding pro se, filed responses but produced no affidavits, depositions, or interrogatory answers demonstrating a genuine factual dispute; trial court granted summary judgment and denied her proposed statement of evidence because an official record existed.
Lacy appealed, raising (1) error in granting summary judgment, (2) abuse of discretion in transferring the case, and (3) error in denying her statement of evidence; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was erroneous	Lacy contended disputed facts existed about assault/battery	Defendants submitted affidavits negating intent and harmful/offensive contact; no contrary evidence from Lacy	Affirmed: summary judgment proper because Lacy failed to produce specific facts/affidavits to create a genuine issue under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56
Whether transfer to Sixth Circuit was improper	Transfer prejudiced Lacy and denied her fair trial	Transfer was for judicial economy (consolidation with related pending case) and was within court’s discretion	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; transfer reasonable and not shown prejudicial
Whether denial of Lacy’s statement of evidence was error	Lacy argued trial court erred in denying her proposed statement when transcript issues existed	Defendants had an official audio/visual record and provided an acceptable transcript; Rule 24(b) applies	Affirmed: denial proper because contemporaneous record was available and defendants’ transcription sufficed
Whether pro se status excuses compliance with appellate/summary judgment rules	Lacy implied procedural leniency required	Defendants argued pro se litigant must follow same substantive/procedural rules; appellate brief deficient	Court: pro se litigants receive some latitude but are not excused from compliance; Court entertained appeal under Rule 2 but affirmed on merits

Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants entitled to some latitude but must follow rules)
Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (same principle regarding pro se litigants)
Bean v. Bean, 40 S.W.3d 52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to cite record or authority may result in waiver)
Newcomb v. Kohler Co., 222 S.W.3d 368 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (skeletal argument without record support does not preserve claim)
Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (court need not research or construct party’s argument)
Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (standard for summary judgment and nonmoving party’s burden to produce specific facts)
Hughes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 340 S.W.3d 352 (Tenn. 2011) (definition of assault: intentional creation of apprehension of harm)
Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of discretionary trial-court decisions)