The Law Office of Daniel A. Horwitz, Esq.

June 29, 2021

Horwitz Law, PLLC Files Suit to Vindicate Nashville Woman’s First Amendment Right to Display Vanity Plate

By

When Nashville woman Leah Gilliam purchased a vanity plate to celebrate her interests in astronomy and gaming, it did not occur to her that her constitutionally protected speech could land her in jail.  Due to the Tennessee Department of Revenue’s determination—more than a decade after the fact—that Ms. Gilliam’s “69PWNDU” vanity plate is illegally “offensive,” though, she is now at risk of prosecution if she does not submit to the State of Tennessee’s unlawful prior restraint.  Accordingly, Horwitz Law, PLLC has filed suit on Ms. Gilliam’s behalf, arguing that Tennessee’s vanity plate law violates the First Amendment by discriminating based on viewpoint and is unconstitutionally vague.

“The First Amendment forbids the government from discriminating against citizens based on the viewpoint they express,” said Horwitz Law, PLLC principal Daniel A. Horwitz, who represents Ms. Gilliam along with attorneys Lindsay Smith and David Hudson.  “Ms. Gilliam’s harmless vanity plate is transparently protected by the First Amendment, and the only illegality involved is the Tennessee Department of Revenue’s decision to violate her First Amendment rights.”

In addition to her lawsuit against Tennessee Department of Revenue Commissioner David Gerregano, Ms. Gilliam has filed an application for a temporary injunction seeking to enjoin enforcement of Tennessee’s vanity plate revocation law against her pending the conclusion of judicial review.

Daniel A. Horwitz is a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer who represents clients across Tennessee.  If you are seeking speech defense or First Amendment representation, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Contact: [email protected]

Posted in: Constitutional Law, Daniel Horwitz, First Amendment
Tags:
June 24, 2021

Horwitz Law, PLLC Wins Appeal of First-Ever Anti-SLAPP Judgment Under the Tennessee Public Participation Act

By

In a precedent-setting, unanimous ruling, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has affirmed the first trial court judgment ever issued under the Tennessee Public Participation Act, Tennessee’s recently enacted anti-SLAPP statute.  The ruling establishes several critical precedents for free speech law in Tennessee, and it represents a total victory for Wilson County woman Kelly Beavers, who has spent nearly two years defending her constitutional right to post a negative review on Yelp!, a popular consumer review website.

“This precedent-setting victory for Ms. Beavers and her family sends a clear warning to anyone who would abuse the judicial process in an attempt to censor honest, critical consumer reviews and other constitutionally protected speech,” said Horwitz Law, PLLC attorney Daniel Horwitz, a First Amendment, anti-SLAPP, and speech defense lawyer who represented Ms. Beavers.  “The First Amendment protects every person’s right to speak freely, and this ruling makes clear that the consequences for plaintiffs who file baseless defamation suits in Tennessee will be severe.”

The case at issue arose out of a lawsuit filed by Dr. Kaveer Nandigam and his corporation, Nandigam Neurology, PLC, against Kelly Beavers regarding a negative Yelp! review.  After Ms. Beavers took her father to see Dr. Nandigam and had a terrible experience there, she exercised her First Amendment right to post a negative review on Yelp!, a popular consumer review website.  Dr. Nandigam threatened to sue her if she did not remove the review, and ultimately, he did sue her for defamation and false light invasion of privacy regarding it when she refused to do so.

After Dr. Nandigam dismissed and then refiled his lawsuit against her, Ms. Beavers filed a Petition to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Tennessee Public Participation Act.  Ms. Beavers’ petition was granted, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals has now affirmed that dismissal in its entirety while ordering the Plaintiffs to pay Ms. Beavers’ legal fees and potential sanctions.  “As [Ms. Beavers] aptly notes in her principal brief, ‘the TPPA . . . was designed to prevent and deter such abuse, not to enable it,'” the Court of Appeals ruled.  Ms. Beavers’ claims for attorney’s fees and sanctions against Dr. Nandigam remain pending and will be adjudicated upon remand.  The Court of Appeals’ opinion additionally orders that: “We remand this matter to the general sessions court for a determination of the proper amount of reasonable fees incurred by Defendant during this appeal” as well.

Read the Tennessee Court of Appeals’ unanimous ruling in Nandigam Neurology, et al. v. Kelly Beavers here: https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/nandigamneurologyv.beavers.opn_.pdf

###

Horwitz Law, PLLC has successfully defended clients against multiple multimillion-dollar libel, slander, false light, and other speech-based lawsuits in Tennessee’s state and federal courts.  Clients represented by Horwitz Law have avoided tens of millions of dollars’ worth of threatened liability and frequently recovered some or all of their attorney’s fees against the people who baselessly sued them.  If you are seeking speech defense, anti-SLAPP, or First Amendment representation, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Posted in: Daniel Horwitz, Defamation, First Amendment, Tennessee Public Participation Act
Tags:
June 22, 2021

Horwitz Law, PLLC Clients the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce, Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws Prevail in Davidson County Election Litigation

By

In a thorough, 42-page opinion, Davidson County Chancellor Russell Perkins has ruled that the Davidson County Election Commission acted unlawfully when it set an election on a legally defective referendum opinion.  “4GG’s Petition . . . did not prescribe a date as required by Section 19.01; it clearly prescribed, or listed, two alternative dates,” Chancellor Perkins ruled.  “Legal prerequisites, however, must be met and the Election Commission’s failure to insist that the ‘prescribe a date’ legal requirement be complied with as written is not entitled to deference upon judicial review.”  “4GG’s Petition did not meet the ‘prescribe a date’ requirement under § 19.01 of the Metropolitan Charter.”

In so ruling, Chancellor Perkins adopted the central argument advanced by the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws as amici curiae in the case.  On June 4, 2021, Horwitz Law, PLLC filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of clients the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws in Metropolitan Government, et al. v. Davidson County Election Commission, et al., Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 21-0433-IV.  The brief argued, among other things, that the Davidson County Election Commission acted unlawfully by approving a multi-date referendum petition despite the Metro Charter’s unambiguous requirement that petitioners “prescribe a date” for an election in order to afford appropriate notice to voters.

“Compliance with straightforward and longstanding legal requirements is not voluntary, and ignoring provisions of the Charter while depriving opponents of fair notice solely because a bare majority of the Election Commission supports a measure is impermissible,” said Horwitz Law, PLLC principal Daniel A. Horwitz—who represented both groups alongside Horwitz Law, PLLC attorney Lindsay Smith—in a statement to the Tennessean on the ruling.  “As the Chamber and TSEL argued at length, the Davidson County Election Commission lacks authority to violate clear provisions of the Metropolitan Charter in an ill-advised effort to apply new and different rules to a favored petitioner,” Horwitz added in a statement to the Tennessee Lookout.

Read Chancellor Perkins’ June 22, 2021 Memorandum and Final Order in Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 21-0433-IV here.

Read the Brief of Amici Curiae of Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws in Support of Petitioner here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-the-Chamber-and-TSEL.pdf

###

Horwitz Law has successfully represented and advised numerous state and local elected officials, candidates for public office, PACs and political organizations, county political parties, and other political law clients across Tennessee regarding campaign finance, election, and political law issues. Horwitz Law has also successfully represented clients in landmark election-related litigation concerning local, state, and federal election law. Daniel A. Horwitz—Horwitz Law’s founding member—formerly served as election counsel for the Tennessee Democratic Party, and he currently serves as General Counsel for Tennesseans For Sensible Election Laws, an election-reform oriented multicandidate political campaign committee and advocacy group.

If you are seeking campaign finance, election law, or political law assistance, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Posted in: Daniel Horwitz, Election Law
Tags:
June 7, 2021

Horwitz Law, PLLC Files Amici Curiae Brief in Metropolitan Government v. Davidson County Election Commission on Behalf of Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce, Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws

By

On June 4, 2021, Horwitz Law, PLLC filed an amici curiae brief on behalf of clients the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws in Metropolitan Government, et al. v. Davidson County Election Commission, et al., Davidson County Chancery Court Case No. 21-0433-IV.  Chancellor Russell T. Perkins entered an order accepting the brief on June 7, 2021.

The brief asserts that the Davidson County Election Commission acted unlawfully by approving a multi-date referendum petition despite the Metro Charter’s unambiguous requirement that petitioners “prescribe a date” for an election in order to afford appropriate notice to voters.  The brief also contends that the Election Commission acted unlawfully and exceeded its jurisdiction by setting the referendum election at issue for an entirely separate third date.  Significantly, until now, the Election Commission has long maintained that the Metro Charter’s “prescribe a date” requirement forbids the Election Commission from altering the election date selected by petitioners, making its actions a significant departure from its own longstanding, established practice.

“Both organizations are concerned with the Davidson County Election Commission’s seemingly partisan-motivated, selective interpretations and abrupt change in position regarding long-established rules,” said attorney Daniel A. Horwitz—who filed the brief along with Horwitz Law, PLLC attorney Lindsay Smith—in a statement to the Tennessean.  “The Election Commission’s position also ensures a constant stream of expedited, pre-election litigation, and it creates serious concerns that going forward, partisanship will dictate outcomes regarding what is supposed to be the neutral process of election administration.”

Read the Brief of Amici Curiae of Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce and Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws in Support of Petitioner here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Brief-of-Amici-Curiae-the-Chamber-and-TSEL.pdf

###

Horwitz Law has successfully represented and advised numerous state and local elected officials, candidates for public office, PACs and political organizations, county political parties, and other political law clients across Tennessee regarding campaign finance, election, and political law issues. Horwitz Law has also successfully represented clients in landmark election-related litigation concerning local, state, and federal election law. Daniel Horwitz—Horwitz Law’s founding member—formerly served as election counsel for the Tennessee Democratic Party, and he currently serves as General Counsel for Tennesseans For Sensible Election Laws, an election-reform oriented multicandidate political campaign committee and advocacy group.

If you are seeking campaign finance, election law, or political law assistance, you can purchase a consultation from Horwitz Law here.

Posted in: Daniel Horwitz, Election Law
Tags: