Samuel H. Mays jr

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

taxespropertyproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case concerns allegations by VRF Eye Specialty Group that former physician Seth L. Yoser engaged in a scheme to illegally procure and resell prescription medications from the practice, along with false billings to defraud VRF and Medicaid, in violation of RICO and various state laws. Yoser had previously pleaded guilty to criminal charges including mail fraud, wire fraud, and unlicensed drug distribution, admitting the misconduct during his criminal proceedings. The court granted in part and denied in part VRF's motion for summary judgment, holding that Yoser's criminal admissions and the undisputed facts established liability on claims such as RICO violations and conversion, while denying summary judgment on damages amounts, certain elements requiring further proof, and a declaratory judgment request due to justiciability concerns.

criminal lawproceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

This case arose from plaintiff Brenda Glass's claims of negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract after her father Clarence Glass fell down an escalator at Memphis International Airport in September 2008, suffering injuries that allegedly led to his death, following his request for wheelchair assistance on a Northwest Airlines flight operated by Pinnacle. The defendants—Air Serv (which provided wheelchair services under contract with Northwest), Pinnacle, and Northwest—each moved for summary judgment, with the court reviewing undisputed facts about planned and unplanned wheelchair requests, gate agent actions, and the timing of events after Glass's flight arrived. The court granted Air Serv's motion in full, granted Pinnacle's motion in full, and granted Northwest's motion in part while denying it in part, reasoning that the evidence did not establish the required duties or breaches for the granted claims under the contracts and applicable standards.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a medical malpractice claim by veteran Bennie Williams and his wife against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged negligence by VA doctors in performing and following up on an aortic valve replacement surgery. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike the government's motion and granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to comply with Tennessee's requirement to file a certificate of good faith with the complaint for medical malpractice actions requiring expert testimony, leading to dismissal of the primary claim. As a result, the derivative loss of consortium claim by the wife was also dismissed.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In Brown v. Hosto & Buchan, PLLC, plaintiff Krista Brown alleged that defendant debt collector Hosto violated two provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692c(a)(2) and § 1692d(5)) and one provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)) by using an automatic telephone dialing system to call her cellular phone seventeen times in one month to collect a personal debt and by communicating directly with her after learning she was represented by counsel. Hosto moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the TCPA claim, and attorney fees. The court denied the motion as to the § 1692d(5) and TCPA claims, holding that the complaint contained sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims under the plausibility standard of Twombly and Iqbal, but granted the motion without prejudice as to the § 1692c(a)(2) claim for lack of adequate supporting facts, and denied fees because no evidence of bad faith was presented.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Baker, the defendant faced federal charges for being a felon in possession of a firearm, possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, and using a firearm during a drug offense, stemming from his June 2008 arrest at an apartment complex. Baker moved to suppress the gun and drugs seized from him, arguing that the police lacked sufficient justification to approach and detain him based on Officer Reese's observations of hand-to-hand transactions and a visible firearm. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion after a hearing, and the district court overruled most of Baker's objections, modified one factual finding regarding the drugs' location, and adopted the report as modified. The court denied the motion to suppress, concluding that the officer's credible testimony established reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the encounter and arrest. The ruling focused on Fourth Amendment standards applied to the facts of the surveillance and stop.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In this case, trustees and fiduciaries of accounts that held shares in several Regions Morgan Keegan bond funds sued the funds' investment advisors, parent companies, and individual officers, alleging that undisclosed conflicts of interest caused the defendants to direct continued investments in the funds despite known risks from illiquid mortgage-backed securities, resulting in substantial losses. The court considered motions to dismiss the first amended complaint and a request for leave to file a second amended complaint. It denied leave to amend, finding that the proposed amendments would be futile because the claims remained centered on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities. Applying SLUSA, the court held that the state-law claims were precluded as they essentially alleged securities fraud and dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a shareholder derivative action brought by investors in the Regions Morgan Keegan Select funds against the funds' investment advisor, broker-dealer, parent company, officers, directors, and portfolio managers, alleging mismanagement and other claims under the Investment Company Act and state law. Plaintiffs pled that they had made demand on the funds' board of directors regarding the claims. Because plaintiffs simultaneously pled demand and demand futility, the court held the futility arguments moot under Maryland precedent, as making demand concedes the board's ability to exercise business judgment on the suit. The court therefore denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, denied the motion to strike the sur-reply as moot, and stayed the case pending a response from the new board on whether it intends to seek dismissal.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from defective exterior paint applied to AutoZone stores, leading AutoZone to sue its supplier Akzo Nobel for breach of contract and warranties; Akzo Nobel then brought third-party claims against its own supplier BASF for indemnification, contribution, breach of warranties, and negligence. The court addressed BASF's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint and Akzo Nobel's motion to amend it. The court granted the motion to amend in part to allow elaboration of indemnification and warranty claims but denied amendment of contribution and negligence claims as futile. It dismissed the contribution and negligence claims because Tennessee's economic loss rule bars tort recovery for purely economic damages stemming from a contractual relationship between commercial parties.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Taylor, the defendant, charged as a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), moved to suppress a revolver found in his backyard by police responding to a 911 domestic disturbance call. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion after an evidentiary hearing, finding no valid consent to search, that the search exceeded the scope of a protective sweep, that no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry into the curtilage, and that the gun was not abandoned property because the defendant retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fenced backyard area. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, as the government filed no objections, and granted the motion to suppress. The core reasoning centered on Fourth Amendment protections for the home's curtilage and the government's failure to establish an exception to the warrant requirement or abandonment.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case is a shareholder derivative suit brought by Rebecca Ryan on behalf of the Regions Morgan Keegan MultiSector Fund against the fund's investment manager and its eight directors. Ryan alleged that the defendants mismanaged the fund's investments in collateralized debt obligations backed by subprime mortgages, made misstatements in the prospectus, and failed to properly value assets during the 2007 market crisis, causing a sharp decline in share price. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that Ryan had not made a pre-suit demand on the board as required by Maryland law. The court granted the motions and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that the allegations did not plead particularized facts sufficient to excuse the demand requirement under the stringent standard of Werbowsky v. Collomb.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff R.T. Wynne sued Stonebridge Life Insurance Company for breach of contract and bad faith after the insurer denied accidental death benefits under two certificates following the 2002 death of the plaintiff's father, which the death certificate attributed to natural causes from vascular dementia. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were untimely under the policies' three-year contractual limitations period and Tennessee's one-year statute of limitations for bad faith claims. The court granted the motion, holding that the policies unambiguously required suit within three years after proof of loss was due (which occurred no later than early 2004) and that the bad faith claim was also time-barred because it accrued when the claim was denied in April 2003. The ruling applied Tennessee law under lex loci contractus and found no basis to toll the limitations periods.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Shanteau Birgs sued the City of Memphis and several police officers after she was pulled over, allegedly subjected to excessive force, and arrested during a 2008 traffic stop while her young son was in the car; the charges were later dropped, and she brought federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment violations based on a failure-to-train theory along with state-law tort claims under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. The court granted in part the City's motion to dismiss, rejecting the § 1983 claim against the City while allowing the state-law claims to proceed. It exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims despite the TGTLA's preference for state courts. The core reasoning was that Birgs failed to plead facts making a plausible failure-to-train claim under the standards of Twombly, but the TGTLA does not preserve municipal immunity for assault and battery claims.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a wrongful death claim by Brenda Glass on behalf of her father Clarence Glass, who fell down an escalator at Memphis International Airport after Northwest Airlines personnel failed to provide requested wheelchair assistance, leading to fatal injuries. The court addressed motions to dismiss by defendants Delta Airlines, Pinnacle Airlines Corporation (PAC), and the Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority, focusing on whether the amended complaint met federal pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal, as well as subject matter jurisdiction over the Airport Authority. The court granted PAC's motion and dismissed claims against it without prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations, but denied Delta's motion because the complaint adequately alleged Delta's control over Northwest Airlines, presenting a factual issue not resolvable on a motion to dismiss. The court also denied the Airport Authority's motion, confirming diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and finding that the complaint sufficiently pled negligence claims regarding wheelchair assistance and employee training.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a putative class action filed in Tennessee state court by shareholders in several bond funds, alleging state-law claims including breach of contract, violations of the Maryland Securities Act, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation against the funds' managers, advisers, and related entities for losses stemming from risky investments in collateralized debt obligations and mortgage-backed securities. Defendants removed the action to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA). Plaintiffs moved to remand, but the court denied the motion, holding that the claims alleged misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of securities in a covered class action, triggering SLUSA preclusion. The court further determined that the action did not qualify for SLUSA's Delaware Carve-Out exception and therefore dismissed the case with prejudice, as amendment would be futile.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power