Day on Torts
Where the plaintiffs’ tort claims related to a state court case filed by the defendants in California, the TPPA applied. The fact that an amended complaint added facts about statements that were made before the California filing did not change that analysis.
In Patel v. Patel, No. M2024-01371-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 19, 2026), Plaintiff Jay Patel was a businessman and entrepreneur. In 2018 he solicited investments for a business, but none of the investors ever received any distributions from that business. Defendant Kar served as CEO of that business, until he was later terminated. Defendant Kar filed a wrongful termination suit in California (with another defendant acting as his attorney), alleging among other things that Plaintiff Jay Patel “was engaged in an ongoing Ponzi scheme.” Defendant Kar also emailed investors and stakeholders in Jay Patel’s business asserting that Jay Patel had engaged in wire fraud and securities law violations. The defendants repeated these allegations against Plaintiff Jay Patel to members of business communities in which Jay Patel was involved.
In 2023, the defendants sent a settlement demand letter to the plaintiffs. When the demand was rejected, the defendants filed an amended complaint in California state court. The plaintiffs thereafter filed this tort action in Tennessee, asserting claims for defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and abuse of process.
The defendants filed a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”), as the claims in the complaint centered on statements made by the defendants in the California complaint. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding facts related to statements the defendants made before the California complaint was filed. The defendants requested to move forward with their TPPA petition, and the trial court denied dismissal, ruling that the TPPA did not apply to this case. The trial court ruled that the defendants failed to show how the new facts in the amended complaint were related to the right to petition, and it concluded that the defendants failed to support the argument that the complaint was related to a matter of public concern and the right of free speech. On appeal, the holding that the TPPA did not apply was reversed.
If a complaint is filed “in response to a party’s exercise of the right of free speech, right to petition, or right of association,” the opposing party may file a petition to dismiss under the TPPA. (quoting Tenn. Code. Ann. § 20-17-104). The first step a court must take when considering a TPPA petition is determining whether the TPPA applies. While the trial court here ruled that the TPPA was not applicable to the amended complaint, the Court of Appeals disagreed.
The Court of Appeals first considered whether the TPPA applied based on the right to petition. While many allegations in the complaint focused on things the defendants said in the California complaint, the plaintiffs argued that the “additional allegations in the First Amended Complaint concerning statements made prior to the filing of the California Complaint” removed this case from the right to petition category of the TPPA.
The Court of Appeals explained, however, that a party can meet its initial burden of showing that the TPPA applies by demonstrating that “the challenged legal action is based on, relates to, or is in response to protected activity.” (internal citation omitted). The analysis was “not whether every alleged statement was made in connection with the California complaint itself, but whether Plaintiffs’ claims are based on, relate to, or are in response to that protected activity.” (internal citation and quotation omitted). The Court concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations implicated the defendants’ right to petition, stating that “the TPPA does not require that every challenged statement independently qualify as protected activity; it requires only that the legal action ‘relate to’ such activity.” The TPPA therefore applied to the complaint.
The Court of Appeals also considered whether the TPPA applied based on the defendants’ exercise of the right of free speech. The TPPA defines the exercise of the right of free speech as “a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern or religious expression that falls within the protection of the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution.” (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-103). The TPPA provides that several categories are matters of public concern, including economic or community well-being and a good, product, or service in the marketplace.
Noting that the Court had previously rejected the argument that “community well-being” had to refer to the “community as a whole,” the Court agreed that the allegations here related to both community and economic well-being. The Court pointed out that the statements were distributed to specific business communities which had an economic interest in the truthfulness of the allegations. These communities also had an interest in the plaintiffs’ alleged misconduct affecting their business community. The Court ruled that the defendants’ statements distributed to specific business communities and investors in the company constituted an exercise of free speech under the TPPA.
Further, the Court also found that the complaint was subject to the TPPA because the statements related to investment services in the marketplace. The Court wrote that “a good, product, or service in the marketplace would seem to include investments in a business.” The statements were directly related to investments in the plaintiffs’ company, and thus were about a good in the marketplace. Accordingly, the TPPA applied based on the exercise of the right of free speech under this category of public interest as well.
Because the complaint related to the exercise of the right to petition and the right to free speech, the TPPA applied. The case was therefore remanded for further analysis by the trial court under the statute.
The TPPA is currently a heavily litigated statute in Tennessee. This case illustrates that a plaintiff cannot necessarily avoid the implications of the TPPA by adding additional factual allegations to his or her complaint, if the complaint otherwise relates to the exercise of free speech, the right to petition, or the right of association.
This opinion was released eight months after oral arguments.