In Re March 9, 2012 Order, W2016-02015-COA-R3-CV

In 2010 Donel and Dana Autin sued William Goetz for defamation and related claims; during discovery the trial court entered a protective order limiting dissemination of certain materials.
On March 9, 2012 the Autins filed a voluntary nonsuit and the trial court dismissed the case without prejudice but ordered the case sealed and the protective order to “remain in full effect.”
In 2015 Goetz moved to modify the protective order; the trial court denied that motion and Goetz appealed.
Separately, on November 2, 2015 Goetz filed an "In Rem Petition to Vacate March 9, 2012 ‘Order’" (styled under a different docket number), asking the court to declare the March 9, 2012 dismissal order void ab initio under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 60.02(3), and did not name the Autins as defendants.
The trial court initially granted Goetz judgment on the pleadings (June 23, 2016) but then stayed that order, permitted the Autins to intervene, and on September 19, 2016 set aside the June 23 order and dismissed the In Rem Petition with prejudice on grounds including res judicata and failure to serve indispensable parties.
While this appeal was pending, a different panel (Autin II) rejected Goetz’s core jurisdictional argument that the nonsuit instantly divested the trial court of authority to extend the protective order; this Court here affirms the dismissal, deems the appeal frivolous, and remands for the trial court to determine attorneys’ fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Goetz)	Defendant's Argument (Autins)	Held
Whether the June 23, 2016 order granting judgment on the pleadings became final because it was not appealed within 30 days	June 23 order became final when not timely appealed	The trial court tolled the appeal period by entering an emergency stay and allowing intervention; motions to alter or amend timely tolled the appeal window	The court held the Autins’ timely motions tolled the 30-day appeal period (citing tolling principles), so June 23 was not final
Whether Autin II has preclusive effect here (i.e., whether the March 9, 2012 order was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)	The March 9 order was void ab initio because the nonsuit immediately divested jurisdiction; thus the protective order could not survive	Autin II rejected Goetz’s jurisdictional claim and defendants argued that Autin II controls the same parties and issues	The court held Autin II is controlling between the parties; the March 9, 2012 order is not void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
Whether the trial court erred in sua sponte finding the In Rem Petition required service/summons	Goetz asserted the proceeding was in rem and service was unnecessary	Autins argued they were indispensable parties and proper service was required for an independent action	The court pretermitted the service issue (did not decide it) because the petition was dismissed on res judicata and other grounds; dismissal affirmed

Binkley v. Medling, 117 S.W.3d 252 (Tenn. 2003) (timely motion to alter or amend tolls the period for filing a notice of appeal)
Creech v. Addington, 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (appellate law-of-the-case doctrine binds later proceedings with substantially same facts)
Selitsch v. Selitsch, 492 S.W.3d 677 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (definition and treatment of frivolous appeals)
Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate court’s discretion to award damages for frivolous appeals)