The case concerned Arvest Bank's claims that Preston Byrd committed fraud in the inducement and conversion by misrepresenting the ownership of Horizon Holding Company and concealing his status as a convicted felon during negotiations for financing a multifamily housing project, as well as Byrd's counterclaims against the bank. The court denied Arvest's motion for summary judgment on its fraud and conversion claims against Preston Byrd, denied the Byrds' cross-motion for summary judgment, and granted Arvest summary judgment on the counterclaims. These rulings were based on the existence of genuine disputes of material fact regarding the alleged misrepresentations, reliance, and ownership interests, while the counterclaims lacked sufficient support.
This case involved plaintiff Chandra Evans, a former Walgreens pharmacist, who sued her employer after termination, alleging claims including race discrimination and retaliation, while Walgreens counterclaimed for breach of contract seeking repayment of relocation and sign-on bonuses that Evans allegedly agreed to repay if she did not remain employed for three years. The court granted Walgreens' motion for summary judgment on Evans' claims, finding the facts undisputed that her termination was for violating workplace policies based on witness statements and investigations, with no evidence of pretext. It denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the breach of contract counterclaim due to factual disputes over whether Evans had agreed to the bonus terms. The core reasoning relied on local rules regarding admissions of undisputed facts and the lack of direct evidence contradicting Walgreens' account of the termination decision.
This case arose from injuries sustained by Clarence Glass when he fell down an escalator at Memphis International Airport after requesting wheelchair assistance for his Northwest Airlines flight, which was operated by Pinnacle; his daughter Brenda Glass sued Northwest, Pinnacle, and Air Serv for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract. In its prior order, the court granted summary judgment to Pinnacle and Air Serv on all claims and to Northwest on the negligence claims but denied it on breach of contract. On the motions to alter or amend and for reconsideration, the court granted Northwest's motion and denied the plaintiff's, finding no evidence that Air Serv received timely notice of the wheelchair request before arrival and that Glass's decision to leave the gate area after waiting only five to ten minutes broke any causal chain, as his actions were not foreseeable. The court concluded there was no triable issue supporting liability on the remaining contract claim against Northwest.
The case involved a petition by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC (OHL) for alleged unfair labor practices during a union organizing campaign, including threats to employees, confiscation of union materials, and termination of union supporters. The court granted the petition for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA, ordering OHL to cease violations, reinstate affected employees, and post notices, pending final resolution by the NLRB. The decision was based on findings by administrative law judges that OHL had committed multiple violations of the NLRA, which provided reasonable cause for the injunction to prevent irreparable harm to employees' rights. The court did not resolve factual disputes but found sufficient evidence supporting the Board's theory.
The case involves a class action lawsuit by the administrator of an estate against a law firm hired by the City of Memphis to collect delinquent property taxes, alleging that the firm unlawfully charged a 20% attorney's fee instead of the 10% maximum allowed under Tennessee law, resulting in claims for violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, negligence, and conversion. The court addressed five pending motions, including motions to stay proceedings, to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or standing, and for substitution of plaintiffs. It denied the motion to stay because the parallel state action was not sufficiently similar, denied the supplemental motion to dismiss, granted in part the motion to dismiss by dismissing the TCPA and negligence claims while allowing the conversion and unjust enrichment claims to proceed based on the sufficiency of the factual allegations, denied the motion to dismiss for lack of standing, and granted the motion to substitute new plaintiffs. The core reasoning centered on whether the plaintiffs adequately alleged an injury traceable to the defendant's conduct for standing purposes under Article III and Rule 17, and whether the complaint stated plausible claims under Tennessee law for the various causes of action.
The case involves Plaintiff Starnes Family Office suing Defendant Meredith McCullar for over $1.5 million as co-maker on two promissory notes arising from real estate business ventures with Michael Starnes that collapsed after the 2007-2008 market downturn. McCullar denied liability and asserted counterclaims and third-party claims alleging fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty, along with allegations questioning Starnes' competence. The court granted SFO's motions to strike McCullar's affirmative defenses and counterclaims as well as the jury demand, granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, and denied the motion to strike allegations about Starnes' competence. The core reasoning was that the defenses and claims were substantively insufficient under pleading standards, the jury demand was waived or improper, and certain third-party claims failed to state viable causes of action while the competence allegations were not subject to striking.