In a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on February 4, 2019, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Deja Vu of Nashville, a local strip club, against business owner Linda Schipani. The lawsuit arose out of testimony that Mrs. Schipani gave to the Metro Traffic and Parking Commission regarding misconduct by the strip club’s valet service operator, which the strip club claimed was part of a conspiracy. Schipani was represented by Daniel Horwitz, a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer based in Nashville.
“Mrs. Schipani is pleased that this garbage lawsuit was properly disposed of at the court’s first opportunity, as we’d promised it would be,” Horwitz said in an emailed statement to the Nashville Business Journal. “In addition to recovering her legal fees, Mrs. Schipani looks forward to celebrating this complete and total victory by continuing to be a good neighbor, a successful businesswoman, and an engaged member of her community. Future bad actors who seek to censor and intimidate their neighbors by filing nonsensical lawsuits would be wise to take heed.”
Daniel Horwitz is a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee. Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below. If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:
Selected Case Documents:
Selected Media Coverage:
In a landmark victory against a decades-old Tennessee election statute, Horwitz client Tennesseans for Sensible Election Laws—a non-partisan PAC that aims to “protect all Tennesseans’ rights to participate in the political process without unreasonable interference from the state government”—has secured an injunction prohibiting the State of Tennessee from favoring partisan speakers. The effect of the Court’s ruling is that non-partisan PACs are now able to make direct campaign contributions during the most critical period before an election—something that partisan PACs have been able to do for decades. The Tennessean has more: https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2018/09/27/nashville-judge-rules-against-tennessee-lawsuit-over-blackout-period-pacs/1437231002/
Daniel Horwitz is a campaign finance and election lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee. Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below. If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:
Selected Case Documents:
–Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of a Preliminary Injunction
Selected Media Coverage:
-The Tennessean: Nashville judge rules against state in lawsuit over ‘blackout period’ for PACs
-Nashville Post: Court strikes down ‘blackout period’ campaign finance provision
-The Tennessean: Tennessee sued over PAC contributions ‘blackout period’ before elections
In another resounding win, celebrated Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn has again beaten back a multi-million dollar defamation and false light lawsuit filed against him by Thomas Nathan Loftis, Sr., the former director of Nashville State’s culinary program. In a unanimous ruling, the Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed the outright dismissal of Mr. Loftis’s claims on the basis that Loftis had advanced a “far-fetched and not a reasonable interpretation” of the statements that he had sued over, and that “the statements in the newspaper article are not defamatory as a matter of law.” The Court of Appeals also ordered Mr. Loftis to pay for the costs of the lawsuit, and it further ordered the Trial Court to determine whether Loftis must pay Mr. Rayburn’s legal fees.
Given the serious threat that the case posed to the viability of newsgathering in Tennessee, the lawsuit attracted national attention from First Amendment organizations like The First Amendment Center’s Newseum Institute and TechDirt. The Court of Appeals’ decision constitutes a total victory and complete vindication for Mr. Rayburn, who has maintained that the lawsuit was frivolous from the beginning. “We’re thrilled about this resounding win, which fully vindicates Mr. Rayburn and the First Amendment yet again,” said Daniel Horwitz, Mr. Rayburn’s attorney. “Filing a lawsuit this frivolous was a very poor decision, and unfortunately for Mr. Loftis, it is about to become an expensive one as well.”
Daniel Horwitz is a First Amendment and speech defense lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee. Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below. If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:
Selected Case Documents:
–Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
–Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint
–Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss (1)/Plaintiff’s Response to Motion to Dismiss (2)
–Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response
–Transcript of Hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
–*Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint With Prejudice
–Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Nathan Loftis, Sr.
–Brief of Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant Randy Rayburn
Selected Media Coverage:
-The Tennessean: Defamation lawsuit against restaurateur Randy Rayburn dismissed — again
-TechDirt: Judge Dumps Stupid Libel Suit Featuring A Man Suing A Third Party For Things A Journalist Said
-Nashville Business Journal: Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn faces $1.5 million lawsuit
-TechDirt: Former University Official Files Libel Lawsuit Against His Replacement For Things A Journalist Said
-Nashville Business Journal: Judge dismisses $1.5M suit against well-known restaurateur
-First Amendment Center’s Newseum Institute: Unusual Defamation Suit Targets Source of Story
In response to a lawsuit filed on March 3, 2017 by attorney Daniel Horwitz on behalf of Plaintiff Dustin Owens—who was issued a citation in early February for displaying what a Metro Nashville Police Officer claimed was “an obscene bumper sticker”—lawyers for the city of Nashville have conceded that “Mr. Owens is correct that the bumper sticker at issue does not fit the criteria of ‘obscene and patently offensive’ as those terms are defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-187 and under relevant First Amendment jurisprudence.” As a result, Metro has agreed to dismiss Mr. Owens’ citation and accept a declaratory judgment that the bumper sticker at issue “is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Under the parties’ settlement agreement, Metro will also pay for the costs of Mr. Owens’ lawsuit.
Mr. Owens’ resounding legal victory comes after extensive local and national media coverage of his arrest for displaying the following crass but comical bumper sticker:
Said Horwitz, Mr. Owens’ counsel: “The statute under which Mr. Owens was cited is facially unconstitutional. Hard-core censorship of this nature also has no place in a free society. We’re ecstatic about this victory, and we appreciate Metro’s prompt concession that the position taken by Mr. Owens’ arresting officer was nakedly meritless.”
Daniel Horwitz is a First Amendment lawyer based in Nashville, Tennessee. Selected case documents and media reports about the case are available below. If you would like to purchase a consultation from Horwitz, you can do so using the following form:
Media Coverage:
–Patch: Obscenity Charges Dropped In Nashville Stick Figure Sex Case
–Faultlines: Nashville Cops Hate Stick Figure Sex (and the First Amendment)
–Heat Street: Tennessee Cops Back Down on Fine For ‘Obscene’ Bumper Sticker of Stick Figures
–TechDirt: Driver Sues State After Receiving Ticket For ‘Obscene’ Stick Figure Vehicle Decal
Case Filings: