Skip to main content

Lisa Garramone v. Tommy Dugger

Tenn. Ct. App.November 25, 2024No. M2023-00677-COA-R3-CV
Defendant WinTommy Dugger

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
TPPA petition to dismiss; summary judgment motion pending

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Trial court granted defendant Patrick's TPPA petition and dismissed plaintiff Garramone's false light invasion of privacy and defamation claims, finding the TPPA applied to his exercise of free speech and plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for her tort claims.

Excerpt

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.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Lisa Garramone, who served as a city commissioner in Nolensville, Tennessee, sued Jason Patrick and Dr. Joe Curtsinger for defamation and false light invasion of privacy. She claimed they worked together to spread false and damaging information about her. The case involved Tennessee's Public Participation Act, a law designed to protect people's right to speak out on public issues. **What the Court Decided:** The court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed Garramone's lawsuit. The judge found that Patrick's actions were protected under Tennessee's Public Participation Act, which shields people when they exercise their free speech rights on matters of public concern. The court also determined that Garramone failed to prove the basic elements needed for her defamation and false light claims. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling reinforces protection for people who speak out about public officials or government matters. Workers who witness wrongdoing by public employees or want to criticize government actions have stronger legal protection under public participation laws. However, the ruling also shows that public employees like commissioners may find it harder to win defamation cases when the speech involves their official duties, as courts tend to favor protecting public debate over government activities.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.