Robert Allan Edgar

In this case, plaintiff Moran Industries, Inc. sued defendants Mr. Transmission of Chattanooga, Inc., Rodney Randall, and others for breach of a long-term franchise agreement and for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act after the franchisee ceased operations and allegedly transferred assets to a competing business using the same marks. Defendants MTC and Rodney Randall moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the portion of the breach claim seeking recovery of lost future royalties and marketing fund payments. The court denied the motion, holding that the amended complaint's allegations—that the franchisee abandoned the agreement and transferred the business without proper termination—were sufficient to state a plausible claim for lost profits under Tennessee law at the pleading stage. The court reasoned that more factual development was needed to assess proximate cause and the circumstances of termination, and that existing case law did not categorically bar such damages where abandonment is alleged.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a consolidated appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 11 proceeding of U.S. Insurance Group, LLC, addressing competing claims by two banks to a perfected security interest in the debtor's book of business, consisting of customer files, renewals, expirations, and related insurance commissions. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's sua sponte award of summary judgment to Cornerstone Community Bank, holding that Cornerstone held priority over Cohutta Banking Company. The court reasoned that Cornerstone's 2006 UCC financing statement, which described collateral as "all accounts" and all records relating to them, satisfied Tennessee's lenient UCC standards under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-9-108 to perfect a lien on the book of business and provide adequate notice to subsequent creditors, while Cohutta's later statement covering general intangibles did not take precedence.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves consolidated appeals from a bankruptcy court's order authorizing Chapter 11 debtors to repay a 2009 debtor-in-possession loan from proceeds of a court-approved asset sale to Xerxes. Pre-petition lenders BNP and Black Diamond objected to the repayment, but the bankruptcy court overruled the objections after an evidentiary hearing and granted the motion. The district court dismissed the appeals on multiple grounds, including statutory mootness under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), equitable mootness, impermissible collateral attack on the sale order, and failure to join a necessary party, while also affirming the bankruptcy court's order on the merits after de novo review of legal conclusions and clear-error review of factual findings.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a dispute over whether Acuity Mutual Insurance Company must pay fire loss benefits under Policy L82005 to Darrell Frye and his wife Lafonne Frye after a 2009 fire damaged a building and daycare business operated by Lafonne. Acuity filed for a declaratory judgment that it owed no coverage because only Darrell was a named insured and because of alleged misrepresentations about a mortgage lien on the property, while the Fryes counterclaimed to reform the policy to add Lafonne as an insured and to recover property damage, business income loss, bad-faith penalties, and punitive damages. The court denied Acuity's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the insured's statements in the proof-of-loss form and whether knowledge of the mortgage held by the insurance agent Sunbelt could be imputed to Acuity. The court also denied the defendants' motion to strike Acuity's supplemental filings as unnecessary and non-prejudicial.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Patricia Arbuckle sued the City of Chattanooga and two police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that officers entered and searched her home without a warrant or consent in the early morning hours of March 13, 2006, while investigating a report of an intoxicated driver, and pointed guns at her during the encounter. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on claims including Fourth Amendment violations, negligence, assault and battery, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment and dismissed claims against the City, official-capacity claims against the officers, unlawful seizure claims, and most state-law claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact or insufficient evidence. It denied summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment unlawful search claims and state-law trespass claims against the officers in their individual capacities, determining that factual disputes existed regarding consent and the scope of the entry. The court reasoned that the record did not conclusively establish consent or exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless entry and that material facts remained in dispute on those specific issues.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In Robinson v. T-Mobile, former employee Rachel Robinson sued T-Mobile alleging interference with her FMLA rights and retaliation through termination after taking intermittent FMLA leave to care for her seriously ill mother, along with a claim under the Tennessee Disability Act for discrimination based on her mother's perceived disability. T-Mobile moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied the motion in part, finding genuine issues of material fact on the FMLA interference and retaliation claims regarding notice of requirements and whether termination was pretextual, but granted the motion on the THA claim because that statute does not cover discrimination based on a family member's disability.

labor & employment

Fulton Bellows, LLC sued Federal Insurance Company for breach of an employment practices liability insurance policy, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, and bad faith refusal to pay after the insurer denied coverage for an age discrimination lawsuit brought by former employees of a predecessor bankrupt company. The court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract claim due to factual disputes over the policy's effective date and notice requirements but granted summary judgment dismissing the TCPA and bad faith claims. The reasoning was that the insurer could reasonably seek to enforce policy provisions and that a mere denial of coverage, without evidence of deception or unfair conduct, does not violate the TCPA or constitute bad faith under Tennessee law.

business & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed group insurance policy issued to a non-profit employer. Plaintiff Mark Goetz sought benefits after a subdural hemorrhage resulting from falls, but the insurers denied the claim based on a pre-existing condition exclusion in the policy. The court had previously ruled that the policy was covered by ERISA and not exempt as a church plan. After reviewing the administrative record and the parties' motions for judgment on the pleadings, the court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendants', concluding that the denial was arbitrary and capricious because the policy's exclusion terms were unclear and did not support the administrator's interpretation of the plaintiff's condition. The court awarded retroactive and future benefits under the policy.

labor & employmenthealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Mellissa Rineholt seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. The ALJ had determined that the plaintiff was not disabled, finding she had severe impairments including seizures, depression, anxiety, and borderline intellectual functioning but did not meet listing criteria such as 12.05(C) for mental retardation, could perform past relevant work, and was not entitled to benefits. The district court rejected the magistrate judge's recommendation to uphold the ALJ's decision after de novo review, concluding that the ALJ had not adequately explained her dismissal of multiple IQ scores when assessing cognitive impairments or whether the plaintiff's prior photo spotter position qualified as past relevant work rather than an unsuccessful work attempt under the regulations. The court therefore granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, denied the Commissioner's cross-motion, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for further consideration of the plaintiff's eligibility, including potential step-five analysis of other available jobs.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved the United States suing the owners and managers of Fountainbleau Apartments for violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against families with children through a policy that excluded applicants under 21 years old. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability, finding that the defendants did not qualify for the exemption for housing intended for older persons. The reasoning was that the defendants failed to demonstrate that at least 80% of residents were over 55, lacked proper procedures to verify residents' ages, and had no policies or advertisements indicating an intent to provide housing only for older persons, instead merely excluding younger adults without meeting the exemption criteria.

civil rights

The case concerned whether a group disability insurance policy provided through the plaintiff's employer, Precept Ministries, qualified as a church plan exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). After the defendants removed the plaintiff's state-law claims for breach of contract and bad faith denial of benefits to federal court, the plaintiff moved to remand on the ground that ERISA did not apply. The court denied the motion, holding that Precept Ministries did not meet the definition of a church under ERISA because it lacked an established congregation, regular worship services, or affiliation with any particular denomination and instead operated primarily as a nondenominational provider of Bible study materials and training programs.

labor & employmentfederal power

Herbert Conley, a union truck driver for Yellow Freight, sued his former employer after being terminated, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for writing a letter refusing to violate federal motor carrier safety regulations by speeding up his runs. He brought claims under the Tennessee Public Protection Act and for common law retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy. The court granted summary judgment on the common law claim because Conley was not an at-will employee, a required element of that cause of action, but denied summary judgment on the TPPA claim after finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether his protected activity was a substantial factor in the termination decision.

labor & employment

In Schultz v. United States, debtors from Hamilton County, Tennessee, who had filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy sought a declaratory judgment that the means-testing provisions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) violated the Bankruptcy Clause's requirement for uniform bankruptcy laws nationwide. The provisions compared debtors' income and expenses against state-specific median income figures and IRS expense standards, which the plaintiffs argued resulted in less favorable treatment compared to debtors in states with higher medians, such as forcing longer repayment periods. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the claims, holding that BAPCPA is constitutional. It reasoned that bankruptcy laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality, that Congress may account for regional economic differences through uniformly applied national statistics without violating uniformity, and that precedents like Blanchette and Gibbons confirm Congress's authority to structure relief based on debtor classes without creating unconstitutional non-uniformity.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves Harold Wayne Nichols' multiple petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state court conviction and death sentence for rape and murder. The district court granted the warden's motion to dismiss, dismissed all petitions, and also granted Nichols' motion to dismiss certain claims. The court evaluated the claims under AEDPA standards for deference to state court decisions on the merits and procedural rules for COA issuance, finding no substantial showing of constitutional error in most instances after reviewing issues like ineffective assistance of counsel regarding serology evidence. A certificate of appealability was issued only for limited claims concerning the initial jury verdict, jury re-charging and polling, trial order, and use of prior convictions as aggravating circumstances in sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

Nichols v. Bell is a federal habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which a Tennessee death-row inmate challenged his convictions for aggravated rape and murder along with his resulting death sentence. The district court conducted an exhaustive review of dozens of claims, most of which had been adjudicated in state court, covering ineffective assistance of counsel at both the guilt and penalty phases, prosecutorial misconduct, erroneous jury instructions, improper admission of evidence, and various constitutional attacks on Tennessee’s capital-sentencing scheme. Applying AEDPA deference, the court examined whether the state-court rulings were contrary to or unreasonable applications of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, assessed procedural default and actual-innocence gateway arguments, and ultimately denied relief after finding the claims either defaulted or without merit on the record presented.

criminal lawprocedure

Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company filed this declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its business auto policy issued to Willie Stanley provided no coverage for the death of Charles McDowell in a 2003 truck collision. The court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and denied the Estate's cross-motion, declaring that the policy afforded no coverage because McDowell's death did not arise from an "accident" and was excluded as an expected or intended injury. The court held that Stanley's criminal conviction for voluntary manslaughter collaterally estopped the Estate from claiming the death was merely negligent or accidental, overriding a prior state civil default judgment that had found negligence. The ruling applied the policy's liability coverage terms, definition of accident, and intentional-injury exclusion, while rejecting arguments about Nationwide's duty to defend in the underlying state action.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a lawsuit by Casey P. Fuller against Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime and off-the-clock work while he was a manager-in-training and assistant manager, and seeking to certify a collective action. Abercrombie moved to stay the action or transfer it to the Southern District of Ohio under the first-to-file rule, citing a similar earlier-filed case there (the Mitchell action) alleging FLSA violations by the same policies. The court determined that the two actions were duplicative because they substantially overlapped in the parties involved, the collective classes, and the core issue of whether Abercrombie's compensation policies violated the FLSA, even though Fuller added an off-the-clock claim. Applying the first-to-file doctrine, the court transferred the case to the Ohio district court handling the Mitchell action pursuant to its inherent authority, without addressing transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved defendant Dennis Mynatt, who was indicted for being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), based on a prior guilty plea to aggravated assault in Tennessee state court that resulted in judicial diversion. Mynatt moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the prior plea did not constitute a conviction under state law. The government initially agreed but later opposed; the court granted the motion to strike the initial response and ultimately granted the dismissal. The court reasoned that under Tennessee law, a guilty plea followed by judicial diversion does not qualify as a conviction for the purposes of the federal firearms prohibition.

criminal lawguns

The case involved plaintiff Seay's Title VII claims against the Tennessee Valley Authority alleging race discrimination, where TVA moved to strike the remaining claims for compensatory damages on Counts 75 and 129 on the ground that Seay had failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not explicitly raising emotional distress or compensatory damages in his EEOC charges, and sought to place the case on the nonjury calendar. The court denied TVA's motion, concluding that Seay's claims for compensatory damages were not precluded and that he was entitled to a jury trial under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(c). The core reasoning was that the compensatory damages claims fell within the scope of the EEOC investigation reasonably expected to grow out of the EEOC charges of race discrimination, as it was objectively reasonable to expect the investigation to explore injuries like emotional distress caused by the alleged discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Clarence Seay, Jr., an African American former TVA employee, asserting claims of race discrimination under Title VII concerning his non-selection for a Methods Team Specialist position and reassignment rights during a reduction in force. Following remand from the Sixth Circuit, the district court addressed TVA's renewed motion for summary judgment on Counts 67 and 125 of the amended complaint. The court granted the motion as to Count 67 and dismissed that claim with prejudice, concluding that summary judgment was warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The court denied the motion as to Count 125 (reassignment rights), however, because genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute based on ambiguous deposition testimony that could be interpreted as indicating an available position for which Seay was eligible.

labor & employmentcivil rights