639 S.W.3d 651
Tenn. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Plaintiff Nandigam Neurology, PLC and Dr. Kaveer Nandigam sued Kelly Beavers after she posted a negative Yelp review about a November 2019 office visit accusing the doctor of unprofessional conduct.
- Beavers filed a motion to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), asserting her review was protected speech addressing a matter of public concern; the general sessions court stayed discovery, considered affidavits, and heard the TPPA motion.
- The general sessions court granted Beavers’ TPPA petition, dismissing the defamation/false-light claims for lack of adequate factual pleading and because Plaintiffs failed to timely present admissible countervailing proof; the order did not resolve attorney’s fees or sanctions.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court; the circuit court concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over TPPA appeals and transferred the appeal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals pursuant to TPPA § 20-17-106.
- The Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction, affirmed dismissal under the TPPA (Plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie elements and filed a late response), and remanded for calculation of trial and appellate attorney’s fees and any sanctions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in transferring the appeal (i.e., which court has jurisdiction over TPPA appeals) | Plaintiffs argued they were entitled to a de novo appeal to circuit court under §27-5-108 and that §20-17-106 is permissive | Beavers argued §20-17-106 makes TPPA orders immediately appealable to the Court of Appeals and deprives circuit court of jurisdiction | Court held §20-17-106 confers exclusive, immediate jurisdiction in Court of Appeals; circuit court properly transferred the appeal |
| Whether the general sessions order was final given unresolved fee/sanctions requests | Plaintiffs contended the order was interlocutory because fees/sanctions remained undecided and thus not appealable | Beavers argued §20-17-106 creates an exception allowing immediate appeal regardless of outstanding fee issues | Court held the statute creates an express exception to the final-judgment rule; appealable despite unresolved fee issues |
| Whether the TPPA applies in general sessions and whether dismissal was proper | Plaintiffs contended TPPA is a rule of civil procedure (not a statute) and inapplicable in general sessions; urged remand for de novo circuit hearing | Beavers maintained TPPA is a statute that applies in general sessions and that Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case under §20-17-105(b) | Court held TPPA is statutory and applies in general sessions; affirmed dismissal because Plaintiffs failed to timely present admissible proof and did not meet their prima facie burden |
| Whether appellate attorney’s fees are recoverable under the TPPA | Plaintiffs did not meaningfully contest appellate-fees entitlement | Beavers argued TPPA’s remedial purpose supports awarding reasonable appellate fees under §20-17-107 | Court held TPPA permits reasonable appellate fees; remanded to general sessions to determine amounts and consider sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2012) (subject-matter jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- Northland Ins. Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000) (jurisdiction principles)
- Bayberry Assocs. v. Jones, 783 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn. 1990) (final-judgment rule for appeals)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Miller, 491 S.W.2d 85 (Tenn. 1973) (final-judgment rule precedent)
- Coffee Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. City of Tullahoma, 574 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. 2019) (statutory construction principles and legislative intent)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (effectuate legislative purpose when construing statutes)
- Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, 205 S.W.3d 406 (Tenn. 2006) (legislative fee awards can include appellate work)
- Liberty Synergistics, Inc. v. Microflo Ltd., 718 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2013) (anti-SLAPP purpose to prevent defendants being dragged through litigation)
- Sandholm v. Kuecker, 962 N.E.2d 418 (Ill. 2012) (describing SLAPPs and anti-SLAPP rationale)