Leadership

Dolly Parton estate moves to dismiss suit against Bryan Seaver

The Dolly Parton estate moved on November 5 to dismiss its suit against Bryan Seaver without prejudice, after allegations of threats, a granted restraining order and disputed service.

By Nathan Brooks

3 min read

Dolly Parton estate moves to dismiss its lawsuit against her nephew, Bryan Seaver
Dolly Parton estate moves to dismiss its lawsuit against her nephew, Bryan Seaversergeitokmakov / pixabay

What's News

  • November 5: Danny Nozell and She’s Alive LLC sought dismissal without prejudice.
  • The dismissal motion was one paragraph, according to NBC News.
  • In September, Nozell accused Seaver of intimidating and coercing estate employees.
  • The estate alleged Seaver dodged the process server three times.
  • Dolly Parton died in August at age 80 after a brief battle with cancer.

By Nathan Brooks

The Dolly Parton estate asked a court on November 5 to dismiss its lawsuit against Bryan Seaver without prejudice, a move that leaves the case open to a possible refiling. The estate said a judge had granted a restraining order against Seaver shortly after the lawsuit was filed.

Estate manager Danny Nozell and his company, She’s Alive LLC, submitted the request in a one-paragraph document, according to NBC News. The motion asks the court to dismiss the case without prejudice, which NBC News said would allow the estate to file again in the future.

NBC News reported that the document gave no indication whether Nozell or She’s Alive LLC intended to restart the case. Representatives for She’s Alive and Seaver had not responded to requests for comment.

What does dismissal without prejudice change for the estate?

For the estate, the request removes the immediate lawsuit while preserving its ability to bring a new action. It does not decide whether the allegations were true or explain why the court granted a restraining order.

The estate also retains its account that Seaver avoided service. If the court grants the motion, the dispute shifts from an active case to a possibility; if it denies it, the claims proceed.

The lawsuit followed Nozell’s September allegations that Seaver, Parton’s nephew and former head of security, intimidated and coerced Dolly Parton estate employees. Nozell had fired Seaver from his job weeks before the lawsuit was filed.

Nozell alleged that Seaver threatened to “ratfuck every [business party] entity” involved in Parton’s theme park, Dollywood, and warned: “[e]veryone needs to be worried about what I might do.” Nozell sought a restraining order, and the estate said a judge granted it shortly after the lawsuit was filed.

Seaver denied that his texts were “threats,” while adding that “most of the comments I stand by.” He described his exchanges with Nozell as “two guys having rage talk and crying on the phone together while we were grieving.” His response focused on the meaning of the messages and the context of the calls.

Nozell also claimed that Seaver evaded service of the lawsuit. The estate alleged that Seaver dodged the process server three times and, during his final attempt, draped barbed wire and caution tape around his house.

The estate submitted a photograph showing barbed wire across Seaver’s porch, yellow caution tape and an assortment of pumpkins. Seaver had not responded on whether the display was intended as Halloween decorations or served another purpose.

The dispute also prompted a public family response from Parton’s sister, Freida Parton. She addressed rumors of a “feud” in an Instagram post.

Freida wrote: “I’ll say this and this only: there is no feud within our family,” the post continued. “No-one [sic] among the Parton/Owens family is fighting over Dolly’s estate. We all love Bryan, just as we all love each other. I love you all!!”

Her statement placed the family’s public position on record but did not resolve the estate’s court claims. Paste reported that Dolly Parton died in August at age 80 after a brief battle with cancer. That death provides the context for the estate action, which concerns alleged misconduct by a former security chief.

The court’s decision now carries the practical weight. A dismissal without prejudice would close the current case while leaving the estate free to refile; a denial would keep the allegations and restraining order in litigation. The filing does not explain the estate’s longer-term intention, and neither side has offered a public reason for the move.

Source: pastemagazine.com

Share this article:

More from Nathan Brooks

Nathan Brooks

Show full bio

News editor covering regulation, policy and their impact on entrepreneurship, startups and venture funding at Business Bearings.

1,641 articles

Related articles

« Previous articleNext article »