Paul Koczera v. Christi Lenay Fields Steele, E2015-02508-COA-R3-CV

Background

Plaintiffs (Paul and Jolene Koczera) sued office manager Christi Steele, Dr. Randall Pearson, Tennessee Urology Associates, PLLC (TUA), and Oak Ridge Urology Associates claiming their negligence/misrepresentation prevented proper service on Dr. O’Connor in an underlying medical-malpractice suit, which led to O’Connor’s dismissal.
Defendants answered and, contemporaneously, moved for summary judgment arguing no duty, no causation, no damages, and that plaintiffs’ counsel was negligent; they supported the motion with documentary evidence from the underlying case.
Plaintiffs opposed the summary-judgment motion, sought a continuance to conduct discovery but did not submit the Rule 56.07 affidavits required to justify a continuance, and also filed a motion to dismiss as moot after a settlement in the underlying case.
The trial court denied plaintiffs’ motions to continue discovery and to dismiss, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and later denied plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against Oak Ridge (held to be a trade name of TUA).
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of default judgment, denial of voluntary dismissal, and denial of additional discovery, but vacated the summary-judgment order because the trial court failed to state the legal grounds required by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04 and remanded for entry of a compliant order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oak Ridge is a separate legal entity for default judgment	Oak Ridge is an unincorporated business association that can be sued separately	Oak Ridge is merely a trade name/office of TUA; TUA’s answer applies	Oak Ridge is not a separate entity; default judgment denial affirmed
Whether settlement of the underlying case renders this suit moot / whether voluntary dismissal should be allowed	Dismissal as moot after settlement; plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal	Defendants argued dismissal would impair their ability to pursue malicious prosecution and opposed dismissal while summary-judgment motion pending	Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying dismissal; affirmed
Whether plaintiffs should have been granted more discovery before summary judgment (Rule 56.07)	Additional discovery necessary to oppose summary judgment; discovery requests were unaccommodated	Plaintiffs failed to file the required affidavit under Rule 56.07 and offered no sworn basis for continuance	Denial of continuance was not an abuse of discretion because Rule 56.07 affidavits were lacking; affirmed
Whether grant of summary judgment was proper and sufficiently explained under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.04	Plaintiffs argued facts and record raised genuine issues of duty, causation, and damages	Defendants argued they negated essential elements; trial court orally ruled against duty, causation, damages	Summary judgment vacated because trial court failed to state legal grounds in writing as required by Rule 56.04; remanded for compliant order

Key Cases Cited

Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary-judgment burdens and standards)
Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
Stewart v. Univ. of Tenn., 519 S.W.2d 591 (Tenn. 1974) (trial court discretion to allow voluntary dismissal while summary judgment pending)
Potter’s Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Szekely, 461 S.W.3d 68 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014) (Rule 56.04 requirement that trial court state legal grounds in order)
Regions Fin. Corp. v. Marsh USA, Inc., 310 S.W.3d 382 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (Rule 56.07 continuance for discovery principles)
Kenyon v. Handal, 122 S.W.3d 743 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (necessity of affidavits under Rule 56.07)