This Tennessee Public Participation Act appeal involves three parties and multiple issues. The plaintiff/appellee, Lisa Garramone (“Ms. Garramone”), while serving as a commissioner for the City of Nolensville, Tennessee, filed a complaint for, inter alia, false light invasion of privacy against four defendants, including appellants Jason Patrick (“Mr. Patrick”) and Dr. Joe Curtsinger (“Dr. Curtsinger”). Ms. Garramone alleged that the defendants acted in concert to spread defamatory information about her during her 2022 re-election campaign. Each defendant responded by filing a petition to dismiss under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 20-17-101 to -110 (“the TPPA”). Mr. Patrick also filed a motion for summary judgment; Dr. Curtsinger did not. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Garramone filed a notice of voluntary dismissal “with prejudice” of all of her claims under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 41.01(1), to which the defendants objected. While the TPPA petitions were pending, this court ruled on the interplay between the TPPA and Rule 41.01(1) in Flade v. City of Shelbyville (“Flade I”), No. M2022-00553-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 2200729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2023). Consequently, the trial court ordered the parties to reargue the TPPA petitions considering this court’s rulings in Flade I. Thereafter, the trial court determined that Ms. Garramone’s voluntary dismissal mooted Dr. Curtsinger’s TPPA petition but that it was ineffective against Mr. Patrick’s TPPA petition because of his pending motion for summary judgment. The trial court further held that Mr. Patrick established that the TPPA applied because Ms. Garramone’s claims were based on, related to, or in response to his exercise of the right to free speech. But the court held that Ms. Garramone failed to demonstrate a prima facie case for her tort claims as required by the TPPA. Thus, the court granted Mr. Patrick’s petition, dismissed Ms. Garramone’s claims against him, and ordered Mr. Patrick to submit his claim for attorney’s fees and costs. Mr. Patrick sought $74,346.50 in attorney’s fees and $920.09 in costs, but the court awarded him only $25,000.00 in attorney’s fees and $66.91 in costs based on its determination that the TPPA’s fee-shifting provision—Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-17-107—should be construed narrowly because it runs contra to the American Rule. Thus, the court found that Mr. Patrick was entitled to only those fees “reasonably incurred in obtaining the dismissal of the action,” which did not include, inter alia, services rendered to prepare a defense against Ms. Garramone’s tort claims. The court reasoned that “more than $46,600.00 of his total fees and $853.18 of his costs” were incurred after Ms. Garramone filed her notice of voluntary nonsuit with prejudice, which the trial court stated disposed of the case “for all practical purposes.” Mr. Patrick appeals the amount of the award for his attorney’s fees and costs; he also seeks his attorney’s fees and costs on appeal. Dr. Curtsinger appeals the denial of his TPPA petition as moot. For her part, Ms. Garramone contends the trial court erred by not denying Mr. Patrick’s TPPA petition as moot when she filed her notice of voluntary dismissal “with prejudice.” After these consolidated appeals were filed and argued, our Supreme Court rendered two decisions pertaining to the TPPA, Charles v. McQueen, 693 S.W.3d 262 (Tenn. 2024), and Flade v. City of Shelbyville (“Flade II”), ––– S.W.3d ––––, No. M2022-00553-SC-R11- CV, 2024 WL 4448736 (Tenn. Oct. 9, 2024). Based on the reasoning in Flade II, we hold that Dr. Curtsinger’s TPPA petition did not curtail Ms. Garramone’s “free and unrestricted” right to voluntarily dismiss her claims against him; thus, we affirm the dismissal of Dr. Curtsinger’s TPPA petition as moot. We further find that Ms. Garramone’s characterization of her dismissal as “with prejudice” did not place it outside the ambit of Rule 41.01(1)’s summary-judgment exception. As for Mr. Patrick’s attorney’s fees and costs, we rely upon the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Charles and Flade II to find that the trial court erred by categorically excluding all fees and costs he incurred in preparing a defense to Ms. Garramone’s claims. Accordingly, we vacate the award of Mr. Patrick’s attorney’s fees and costs and remand for reconsideration of the reasonable amount to which he is entitled under § 20-17-106 and to enter judgment accordingly. We also find that Mr. Patrick is entitled to recover his attorney’s fees and costs incurred in this appeal pursuant to § 20-17- 107, as explained in Nandigam Neurology, PLC v. Beavers, 639 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021), and remand for the trial court to make the appropriate award.

In its divorce decree, the trial court “adopted” Wife’s proposed parenting plans without signing or attaching the plans. More than a year after the resolution of Husband’s subsequent motion to alter or amend, the trial court eventually signed the parenting plans pursuant to a motion to enter by Husband. Because we determine that Husband’s argument that the trial court’s order only became final when the plans were signed is without merit, we conclude that Husband’s appeal was untimely. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed. Wife is awarded her appellate attorney’s fees.

A judgment creditor petitioned to enroll and enforce a Missouri judgment under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. In an earlier appeal, we determined that the trial court properly enrolled the foreign judgment, but we vacated the enforcement decision to determine the outstanding amount owed under the judgment. In this appeal, the judgment debtor faults the trial court for not considering his equitable estoppel defense on remand. Discerning no error, we affirm.

In this compensation appeal, the employee asserts the trial court erred in denying her motion to continue the hearing of the employer’s motion for summary judgment and in granting summary judgment to the employer. The employee alleged a compensable injury to her lungs resulting from COVID-19, which she claims she contracted as a result of her exposure to infected coworkers and patients at the employer’s facility. The employer denied the employee’s claim, asserting there was no evidence her COVID-19 infection arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The employer filed a motion for summary judgment and set a hearing. The employee then filed a motion to continue the scheduled hearing, which the court denied. Following a telephonic hearing, the trial court entered an order granting summary judgment to the employer and dismissing the employee’s case with prejudice. Upon careful consideration of the record, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

November 18, 2024 - November 22, 2024.

An inmate died in intake at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center on Friday morning, the Daily Memphian reports. Shelby County Sheriff Floyd Bonner on Friday announced in a news conference that the inmate was found unconscious and medical aid was rendered but the man could not be saved. The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation is investigating the inmate's death. This is the “fifth or sixth” in-custody death at the jail this year so far, most related to medical reasons, according to the sheriff, the paper reports.

Around 60% of Tennessee third graders didn't meet the state’s reading standards last school year with less than 1% actually held back, as required under a state reading law that took effect last year, according to the Tennessean. The majority of students moved on to fourth grade because of exemptions to the law, including students who are English language learners or have learning disabilities. The law primarily determines children's reading proficiency by their English Language Arts scores on the standardized Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) test. Of the students that didn’t qualify for exemptions, most of them agreed to an alternative plan that included either summer school or tutoring and allowed them to move on to the next grade.

A Tennessee man involved in the Jan. 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol riot has been convicted of planning to kill federal investigators. Edward Kelley, of Maryville, was found guilty of multiple counts after prosecutors outlined how the man created a “kill list” of FBI agents and others. He was arrested based on videos from the capitol and had his home searched by the FBI. According to WPLN news, an acquaintance helped investigators by recording phone calls in which Kelley discussed three dozen targets and how many weapons he’d have access to for an attack on the FBI office in Knoxville. Kelley faces up to life in prison and will be sentenced in May.

A new grant program aimed at lowering the cost of private adoptions and helping recruit more foster families in Tennessee was announced by Gov. Bill Lee and the state’s Department of Children’s Services (DCS). Starting Jan. 1, 2025, DCS will launch the Home Study Reimbursement Grant Program, which will reimburse families up to $1,000 for the cost of a home study for private adoptions. The state already covers home studies for foster families, according to WSMV news. DCS said there are currently more than 8,000 children in its care, with about 5,000 approved foster homes across the state.

Tennessee attorney Lundy Boyd Carpenter of Piperton died Nov. 17 at the age of 53. A Memphis native, she obtained her law degree from the University of Tennessee College of Law in 1997 and began her law career by serving as a judicial law clerk for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. After taking a break from law to raise her son, Carpenter returned to the legal field by serving as an adoption attorney for Weaver & Craig P.C. Services for Carpenter were held Sunday. Gifts in her memory can be made to Rossville Church, to Voice of the Martyrs or to Samaritan’s Purse.