Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
COME NOW, Defendants Abigail Honeycutt and Emily Barnes (hereinafter “Ms.
Honeycutt” and “Ms. Barnes”), by counsel, and move to transfer the above-referenced cause to
Circuit Court. The grounds for this motion are set forth in the attached memorandum incorporated
by reference herein.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________
Grace E. Studer, BPR #037394
SPURRELL & STUDER LAW GROUP
128 East Market Street
Johnson City, TN 37604
Telephone: (423) 926-9421
Facsimile: (888) 526-1020
Counsel for Defendants Honeycutt
& Barn
0
IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL
DISTRICT AT WASHINGTON COUNTY, TENNESSEE
Ms. Honeycutt and Ms. Barnes submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion
to transfer this cause to Circuit Court based on Chancery Court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, Cootie Brown’s, Inc., filed a Complaint with this Court on or about July 23rd,
2020, against Ms. Honeycutt and Ms. Barnes for statements made in the role as administrators of
Plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action against Ms. Honeycutt and Ms. Barnes, including
defamation (both libel and slander), false light invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of
temporal, economic, and property damages. Plaintiff amended its Complaint on or about July 30th,
2020, to allege the additional claim of intentional interference with business relations against Ms.
As to relief, Plaintiff requests that a, “trial be conducted in this cause by the Chancery
Court, the injunctive relief being sought being primarily equitable in nature” but also that “Plaintiff
be granted a Judgment against the Defendants, individually, in the amount of $75,000.00 each for
just and reasonable for punitive damages.” See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, ¶ B-D, p. 8.
Before reaching any substantive issues in this case, the Court is bound to examine whether
it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims presented. The Tennessee Supreme Court has held
Johnson v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 840, 843-44 (Tenn. 2013) (citations omitted) (emphases
added). The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over suits seeking unliquidated
(a) The chancery court has concurrent jurisdiction, with the circuit court, of
all civil causes of action, triable in the circuit court, except for unliquidated
damages for injuries to person or character, and except for unliquidated
damages for injuries to property not resulting from a breach of oral or written
contract; and no demurrer for want of jurisdiction of the cause of action shall
be sustained in the chancery court; except in the cases excepted.
(b) Any suit in the nature of the cases excepted above brought in the chancery court,
where objection has not been taken by a plea to the jurisdiction, may be
transferred to the circuit court of the county, or heard and determined by the
chancery court upon the principles of a court of law.
Tenn. Code. Ann. § 16-11-102 (emphasis added). According to our Supreme Court, “where a
jurisdictional objection has been made, such a transfer [to circuit court] is mandated.”
Flowers v. Dyer County, 830 S.W.2d 51., 52 (Tenn. 1992) (emphasis added); Williams v. City of
Milan, (Tenn. App. 2011) (transferring Plaintiff’s claims to circuit court because Plaintiff seeks
unliquidated damages).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Honeycutt’s and Barnes’s Motion to Transfer to
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
____________________
Grace E. Studer, BPR #037394
SPURRELL & STUDER LAW GROUP
128 East Market Street
Johnson City, TN 37604
Telephone: (423) 926-9421
Facsimile: (888) 526-1020
Counsel for Defendants Honeycutt
& Barnes
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and exact copy of the foregoing Motion to
Transfer and Memorandum of Law in Support has been served upon all counsel of record via U.S.
Mail, postage prepaid, or via facsimile on this 10th day of August 2020 as follows:
_________________________________
Grace E. Studer
Certificate of Service 4