Bell v. Mark Dietz & Co. et al

Filing 62

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 56 is ADOPTED. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 52 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Quash 61 is DENIED AS MOOT. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall enter j udgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 10/13/17. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
OWEN CARL BELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK DIETZ & CO., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:16-cv-02064
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No.
56), recommending the Court dismiss the Complaint as being barred by Tennessee’s
litigation/testimonial privilege. Bell filed timely objections (Doc. No. 57), to which two defendants
responded (Doc. Nos. 58-59). Bell then moved to quash N5ZX Aviation, Inc.’s opposition. (Doc.
No. 61.) After a de novo review of the record, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
In his Objections, Bell asserts, without citation, that there “is no litigation/testimonial
privilege that allows for falsifications by a Plaintiff, their Attorneys or their witnesses during a
trial.” (Doc. No. 57 at 2.) However, “defamatory statements by a judge, witness, counsel, or part
‘made in the course of a judicial proceeding, if pertinent or relevant, are absolutely privileged, and
this is true regardless of whether they are malicious, false, known to be false, or against a stranger
to the proceeding.” Simpson Strong-Tie Co. v. Stewart, Estes & Donnell, 232 S.W.3d 18, 23
(Tenn. 2007) (quoting Jones v. Trice, 360 S.W.2d 48, 54 (Tenn. 1962)). Bell’s claims are based
on an attorney’s misrepresentations during a state court trial, and are therefore covered by
Tennessee’s litigation/testimonial privilege.

1

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 56) is ADOPTED. Defendants’
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 52) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash
(Doc. No. 61) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2