Loring Justice v. Vey Michael Nordquest, PH.D.
E2020-01152-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jun 29, 2021Background
- Loring Justice sued psychologist Dr. Vey Michael Nordquist for actions arising from his role in related paternity litigation, alleging duties, breach, and resulting harm (including parental alienation of the child).
- An earlier (2014) malpractice suit was voluntarily dismissed; Justice refiled in May 2019 in Knox County Circuit Court.
- Nordquist moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) and 12.06 (raising immunity, standing, statute‑of‑limitations/repose, no duty, and collateral estoppel); he did not file an answer.
- The trial court granted the motion and entered an order of dismissal (Feb. 28, 2020); Justice’s motions to alter/ amend were denied (May 7, 2020).
- Justice timely filed a First Amended Complaint (June 8, 2020) within the 30‑day window and before the dismissal became final; the trial court never ruled on that amended complaint.
- The Court of Appeals held the appealed order was not a final judgment because the amended complaint remained pending, concluded it lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal, and remanded for further proceedings; costs were taxed to appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial‑court dismissal was a final, appealable judgment | Justice argued that because Nordquist never filed a responsive pleading, he had an absolute right to amend the complaint and the dismissal was not final | Nordquist argued the dismissal was final and that the amended complaint was improper after dismissal; no response to amended complaint required | The court held the dismissal was not final for appeal because the amended complaint, filed timely before finality and after no responsive pleading, remained pending |
| Whether a motion to dismiss counts as a "responsive pleading" under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01 | Justice: a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading, so he could amend as of course | Nordquist: dismissed order foreclosed amendment and no answer was needed | Court held a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading (consistent with precedent), so Justice could file an amended complaint as of course |
| Effect of filing an amended complaint on prior dismissal | Justice: filing the amended complaint after dismissal nullified or kept the action alive, preventing finality | Nordquist: amended complaint was frivolous and could be stricken; dismissal remained controlling | Court held the dismissal remains as to the original complaint but the timely amended complaint remained outstanding and prevented finality for appeal |
| Appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders | Justice attempted to appeal; argued appeal was proper | Nordquist contended appeal should be dismissed as untimely or improper | Court held it lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction because the appealed order was not final and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Henderson, 121 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 2003) (defines final judgment as one resolving all issues)
- Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments absent specific rule/statute)
- Mosley v. State, 475 S.W.3d 767 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015) (motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading for Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01)
- McBurney v. Aldrich, 816 S.W.2d 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (thirty‑day rule for finality and the trial court’s ability to alter judgment within that period)
- Creech v. 281 S.W.3d 363 (Tenn. 2009) (a judgment in a case with a pending appeal is not final for res judicata purposes)
- Adams v. Carter County Memorial Hosp., 548 S.W.2d 307 (Tenn. 1977) (plaintiff may amend complaint as a matter of course after dismissal and before final judgment)