James C. Loden, M.D., P.C. v. Schmidt, M2014-01284-COA-R3-CV
| Decision Date | 24 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. M2014-01284-COA-R3-CV,M2014-01284-COA-R3-CV |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
| Parties | JAMES C. LODEN, M.D., P.C., d/b/a LODEN VISION CENTERS, and JAMES C. LODEN, M.D., Individually v. GERALD MICHAEL SCHMIDT |
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County
1
Doctor filed this lawsuit against a former patient, alleging malicious prosecution, tortious interference, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After the patient refused to respond to discovery, the trial court eventually entered an order striking the patient's answer and entering a default judgment against the patient. The trial court later awarded the doctor nominal damages and a permanent injunction. Affirmed.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed and Remanded.
Gerald Michael Schmidt, Franklin, Tennessee, Pro se.
James Bryan Lewis, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, James C. Loden, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Loden Vision Centers, and James C. Loden, M.D., Individually.
Background
Plaintiff/Appellee Dr. James C. Loden ("Dr. Loden") performed LASIK eye surgery2 on Gerald Schmidt ("Mr. Schmidt") on May 18, 2007 at Dr. Loden's clinic, Loden Vision Center. Mr. Schmidt contends this caused corneal neuropathy and vitreous floaters in his eyes. Mr. Schmidt filed two malpractice actions against Dr. Loden, but both were eventually dismissed.3
In 2008 and 2009, Mr. Schmidt allegedly began posting on Dr. Loden's Facebook page and other internet sites "warning others about his negative experiences" with his LASIK procedure performed by Dr. Loden. In these posts, Mr. Schmidt allegedly claimed that Dr. Loden acted improperly with regard to Mr. Schmidt and other patients. Eventually, on March 19, 2010, Dr. Loden, individually and d/b/a Loden Vision Center, filed a complaint against Mr. Schmidt for malicious prosecution. Dr. Loden granted Mr. Schmidt an extension in which to file an answer, allowing until approximately May 15, 2010. Counsel for Mr. Schmidt filed a notice of appearance on April 29, 2010; however, Mr. Schmidt failed to file an answer by May 15, 2010.
On July 28, 2010, Dr. Loden filed an amended complaint, asserting additional claims for tortious interference, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The amended complaint alleged that Mr. Schmidt engaged in a pattern of defamatory, harassing, and sometimes threatening behavior against Dr. Loden and the staff at Loden Vision Center, which negatively affected Dr. Loden's business and made Dr. Loden and his staff fearful of their safety. On the same day, Dr. Loden filed a request for a temporary injunction preventing Mr. Schmidt from making defamatory comments about Dr. Loden. Mr. Schmidt responded in opposition to the motion for temporary injunction on August 3, 2010. The trial court nevertheless granted the temporary injunction on August 9, 2010.
On January 12, 2011, Mr. Schmidt's counsel was permitted to withdraw from the case.4 On February 25, 2011, Mr. Schmidt, acting pro se, filed an answer to the amendedcomplaint, denying the material allegations contained therein. In addition, Mr. Schmidt asserted that his statements were true, were not communicated with malice, and were protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case languished for several years; the parties were ordered to attend several status conferences, and the trial court entered numerous case management orders. Mr. Schmidt also filed a motion to dismiss Dr. Loden's complaint, which was denied by the trial court over a year after the motion was filed.
Discovery disputes are at the center of this appeal. First, on November 20, 2013, Dr. Loden filed a motion to compel Mr. Schmidt to answer a question propounded to Mr. Schmidt during his deposition but which Mr. Schmidt refused to answer.5 The trial court granted Dr. Loden's motion to compel on December 20, 2013 and awarded Dr. Loden $200.00 in discretionary costs as a sanction. Soon thereafter, on January 8, 2014, Dr. Loden filed a second motion for sanctions against Mr. Schmidt for failure to answer interrogatories or respond to requests for production of documents. Mr. Schmidt subsequently filed a motion to be permitted additional time to respond to discovery. On February 14, 2014, however, the trial court entered an order finding that Mr. Schmidt was timely and properly notified of his inadequate discovery responses on November 20, 2013, and that he willfully failed to correct his discovery responses since that date. Accordingly, the trial court awarded Dr. Loden $1,600.00 in attorney's fees as a sanction. The trial court further ordered that Mr. Schmidt should answer all outstanding discovery requests within thirty days of the entry of its order.
Thirty days passed with no response from Mr. Schmidt. Accordingly, on April 7, 2014, Dr. Loden filed a third motion for sanctions against Mr. Schmidt, indicating that Mr. Schmidt had neither responded to discovery as ordered nor paid the two prior awards of sanctions within the time frame set by the trial court. The motion requested that the trial court strike Mr. Schmidt's answer as a discovery sanction pursuant to Rule 37.02 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, set a show cause hearing as to why Mr. Schmidt should not be held in contempt. Dr. Loden also requested attorney's fees associated with the filing of his motion.
The trial court held a hearing on Dr. Loden's motion for sanctions on April 25, 2014. The trial court entered a written order granting Dr. Loden's motion on May 21, 2014. In the order, the trial court found:
1. [Mr.] Schmidt, failed to file a response to [Dr. Loden's] Motion as required by Davidson County Local Rules of Practice 26.04.6 The [c]ourt finds [Mr. Schmidt] has been advised by this [c]ourt previously concerning this Local Rule, and [Mr. Schmidt] has continued to ignore Local Rule 26.04 concerning timely responses to motions.
2. The [c]ourt finds the [Mr. Schmidt] has consistently ignored the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure as they relate to discovery, and this [c]ourt has previously sanctioned [Mr. Schmidt] on December 20, 2013 and February 14, 2014 as a result of non-compliance with discovery.
3. The [c]ourt finds the [Mr. Schmidt] has purposely ignored this [c]ourt's order of February 14, 2014 to answer Plaintiffs' discovery request and has been in direct violation of this [c]ourt's order for over two (2) months. The [c]ourt finds the Defendant was advised by Special Master Mary Ashley Nichols on April 7, 2014 to comply with the [c]ourt's order of February 14, 2014, and [Mr. Schmidt] purposely [sic] continued to ignore and violate this [c]ourt's order.
4. Based on [Mr. Schmidt's] consistent and willful pattern of ignoring this [c]ourt's orders as it relates to the discovery process in this ease, as well as [Mr. Schmidt's] repeated and willful conduct of disregarding Local Rule 26.04, the [c]ourt finds the [Dr. Loden's] Motion shall be granted and the [Mr. Schmidt's] Answer struck from the record. [Dr. Loden] shall be granted a default judgment and a hearing for damages shall be held on June 3, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
Thus, the trial court simultaneously struck Mr. Schmidt's answer and entered a default judgment against him for failure to file an answer to the amended complaint.
The trial court held a hearing on damages on June 3, 2014. On the same day, the trial court entered a written order awarding Dr. Loden $1.00 in nominal damages, and a permanent injunction barring Mr. Schmidt and his agents or assigns:
[F]rom contacting or attempting to contact any prospective, current, or past patient of [Dr.] Loden [] or Loden Vision Centers via Facebook or any other internet site or any other medium of communication including, but not limited to, the internet, U.S. mail, telephone, facsimile, in-person or any other means of communication for the purpose of interfering with said patients' business relationship with [Dr.] Loden [] or Loden Vision Centers. [Mr.] Schmidt shall be allowed to make postings on the internet under his own name and can make any posting about any aspect of Lasik surgery as long as [Mr.] Schmidt does not mention in any way Dr. James C. Loden or Loden Vision Centers.
Further, the trial court enjoined Mr. Schmidt and his agent or assigns from making any untrue or defamatory statements regarding Dr. Loden or Loden Vision Center, or making harassing or threatening communications to Dr. Loden, Loden Vision Center, or any employees or agent of Loden Vision Center. Mr. Schmidt filed a timely notice of appeal.
Analysis
Mr. Schmidt raises one issue for review, namely: "Whether the Second Circuit Court of Davidson County erred by granting a default judgment against [Mr. Schmidt] and granting [Dr. Loden] a permanent injunction when [Dr. Loden's] unmeritorious charges of malicious prosecution, tortious interference, and defamation were never heard on the merits." Before addressing the substantive arguments raised by Mr. Schmidt, we first must discuss the deficiencies in Mr. Schmidt's appellate brief.
We recognize that Mr. Schmidt is proceeding pro se in this appeal and, therefore, may not be fully familiar in the Rules of this Court. Accordingly, we keep in mind the followingguidance in considering Mr. Loden's brief:
To continue reading
Request your trial