Day on Torts
Where the trial court granted a TPPA motion to dismiss on two grounds, but the plaintiffs addressed only one of the grounds in their appeal, dismissal was affirmed.
In Black v. Baldwin, No. M2024-00151-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 3, 2025), the defendant’s daughter moved in with the plaintiffs, causing issues between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The defendant made social media posts claiming that the plaintiffs had kidnapped her daughter, that one plaintiff was a pedophile, that the plaintiffs were grooming the daughter, and that the plaintiffs were in a cult. The defendant also reported the plaintiffs to the Department of Children’s Services.
The plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, intrusion upon section, and other claims. The defendant moved to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”). The trial court granted the TPPA dismissal, finding that the complaint was filed in response to the defendants “exercise of (1) the right to free speech and (2) the right to petition.” In addition to dismissing the case, the trial court awarded the defendant her attorneys’ fees and additional sanctions under the TPPA totaling $40,000. The trial court’s ruling was affirmed on appeal.
After summarily addressing the plaintiffs’ arguments that the TPPA was unconstitutional and that the trial court’s ruling did not reflect its own judgment, the Court of Appeals analyzed dismissal under the TPPA. “The TPPA provides…that if a legal action is filed in response to a party’s exercise of the right to free speech or right to petition…, that party may petition the court to dismiss the legal action.” (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-17-104(a)). The TPPA lays out a burden-shifting framework, so that if “the petitioning party meets this initial burden, then the court shall dismiss the legal action unless the responding party establishes a prima face case for each essential element of the claim in the legal action.” (internal citation and quotation omitted).
The trial court found that the instant case was filed in response to both defendant’s right to free speech and right to petition. The trial court cited both these alternative grounds when granting the TPPA petition to dismiss. “Where a trial court provides more than one separate and independent ground for its judgment and a party fails to appeal one or more of the independent grounds, we must affirm the judgment of the trial court on the ground that was not challenged on appeal.” (internal citation omitted). In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs focused solely on the argument that the defendant’s speech at issue here was related “to mattes of private, not public concern.” The plaintiffs failed to address the right to petition in their appeal. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed dismissal, writing that the plaintiffs “have waived review of the trial court’s dismissal of the action pursuant to the TPPA by failing to appeal all alternative grounds of dismissal.”
Finally, the plaintiffs also appealed the award of sanctions in addition to attorneys’ fees in this case. The Court wrote that the TPPA allows a discretionary award of sanctions when “necessary to deter repetition of the conduct by the party who brought the legal action or others similarly situated.” Here, one plaintiff was an “experienced attorney” with a “history of ethical misconduct.” In addition, the plaintiffs had “previously initiated litigation against the defendant and engaged in questionable conduct toward the Defendant…that appears vindictive.” Based on these factual findings, the award of fees and sanctions was affirmed.
This opinion was released two months after oral arguments in this case.