State Court Says Tennessee's Anti-SLAPP Law Is Constitutional, Shuts Down Litigant Involved In Baseless Libel Litigation
from the maybe-work-on-your-reputation-rather-than-suing-third-parties dept
Tennessee is filled with awful legislators. Fortunately, despite itself, the legislature passed an anti-SLAPP law that appears to finally be putting an end to ridiculous libel lawsuits in the state. Prior to this, residents and libel tourists were abusing the law to do things like silence legitimate criticism and — believe it or not — sue a journalist for things said by someone he interviewed.
While the state legislature continues pissing tax dollars away asking the federal government to institute criminal penalties for flag burning and requesting state colleges forbid student-athletes from expressing anything other than reverence for the flag, state courts are quietly ensuring their better legislative efforts remain viable.
The plaintiff — Tiny House Chattanooga — sued Sinclair Broadcasting after news coverage of the fallout from a reality program episode involving the tiny house manufacturer resulted in some acrimonious behavior by both parties: Mike Bedsole of Tiny House and the nominal recipients of his tiny house, Rebecah and Ben Richards. The couple was apparently promised a house — and some TV coverage — but received neither.
They went to court and because the title is in Bedsole’s name, the judge considered the couple tenants and evicted them.
“Based on the fact that the builder has the title in his name he had to rule in position to the builder and he gave us 10 days to vacate the property. And during those 10 days the builder took the house off the property,” he said.
The couple said they have repeatedly written to Bedsole asking where their home is, but have not received a response from him.
Bedsole sued Sinclair for KABC’s coverage. KABC filed an anti-SLAPP motion asking for the defamation lawsuit to be dismissed. Bedsole then filed this cross motion, asking the court to examine the constitutionality of the state’s anti-SLAPP law.
The anti-SLAPP law wins. Bedsole loses.
The TPPA, at least in the eyes of this court, is clearly predicated upon public policy concerns. “The purpose of this chapter is to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, to speak freely, to associate freely, and to participate in government to the fullest extent permitted by law…” T.C.A. 20-17-102. There can be no serious question that the intent of the legislature in passing this statute was to effect a more beneficial public policy.
To better benefit the public, the anti-SLAPP law allows for fee-shifting, placing the burden back on the party engaging in litigation solely for the purpose of silencing criticism. This is integral and constitutional, says the court.
This additional remedy is significant. […] [A] greater burden has been placed upon the plaintiff than the mere requirements of Rules 8 and 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, that’s not the only outcome available. Like any other litigation, the decision to shift fees still lies with the court. The new law simply provides another outlet for it to use should it decide the litigation has been pursued in bad faith.
The provisions of the TPPA do not mandate any particular result but leave the ultimate decision to within the discretion of the trial court. None of these provisions remove from the trial court the authority to interpret and apply the applicable law.
Since there’s no removal of power, the law is constitutional. The challenge fails and Bedsole and his company will no longer be able to sue journalists for reporting on a housing dispute, no matter how unfavorable the coverage is to Bedsole. This ruling solidifies the state’s anti-SLAPP law, making it more resilient against future challenges of its constitutionality. Bad faith litigants should be further deterred from filing bogus libel lawsuits and/or claiming the law bypasses the Constitution at the state level.