Bernice Bouie Donald

The case involved 600 Marshall Entertainment Concepts, LLC, which sought injunctive and declaratory relief after the City of Memphis revoked its Compensated Dance Permit for operating an adult nightclub with compensated dancers in the Central Business District. The 1993 Ordinance had banned adult entertainment in that district, and the company claimed it was entitled to “grandfathering” as a prior nonconforming use. After a bench trial and remand from the Sixth Circuit, the district court held that 600 Marshall failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it qualified for grandfathering. The court found that adult entertainment at the properties had been discontinued well before the 1993 ban, with no CDP issued since at least 1991 and no continuous nonconforming use established through the relevant period; it also concluded there was no valid claim for damages arising from the permit revocation.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves the EEOC's Title VII lawsuit against Ralph Jones Sheet Metal, Inc., alleging racial discrimination and a hostile work environment on behalf of African-American employees, along with related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the employee responsible for the racial slurs was not a supervisor, that the conduct was not severe or pervasive, and that complaints were not properly raised under the union agreement. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact about the pervasiveness of the racial harassment, the supervisory role of the employee in question, the employer's response to complaints, and the lack of an effective anti-harassment policy. Evidence included repeated use of racial epithets, threats, graffiti, and differential discipline, which a jury could find created a racially hostile environment attributable to the employer.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a class action lawsuit by over 300 current and former cable installation technicians employed by FTS USA, LLC and its parent UniTek USA, LLC, who allege that the defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay proper overtime compensation under a piece-rate pay system. The defendants moved to decertify the class, arguing that individual claims varied too much for classwide resolution, and sought summary judgment on grounds including insufficient evidence for damages, lack of a classwide damages method, and no willful violation. The court denied the motion to decertify, finding the plaintiffs' claims substantially similar and suitable for class treatment. It also denied summary judgment, determining that sufficient evidence existed for a factfinder to award damages on a representative basis, material facts were disputed regarding willfulness, and claims could not be dismissed for lack of discovery on most plaintiffs.

labor & employment

This case is a qui tam action brought by relator Samuel Adam Cox, III, under the False Claims Act against Smith & Nephew, Inc., alleging that the company sold medical devices manufactured in Malaysia to the Department of Veterans Affairs and General Services Administration in violation of the Trade Agreements Act by misrepresenting their country of origin. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FCA's public disclosure bar and for failure to state a claim with particularity under Rule 9(b). The court denied the motion, holding that the relator qualified as an original source with direct and independent knowledge of the information underlying the claims, making the public disclosure bar inapplicable, and that the amended complaint sufficiently alleged the essential elements of the FCA violations with the required specificity.

business & regulatorycriminal law

The case involves Sadeo Alkabsh, owner of Liberty Mart, challenging the USDA's permanent disqualification from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for alleged trafficking in food stamps based on patterns in electronic benefit transfer transactions. Plaintiff sought a temporary stay of the disqualification under 7 U.S.C. § 2023(a)(17) pending judicial review. The court denied the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm, noting that the store had continued operating for over five months after the sanctions were imposed.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a VA psychiatrist who disclosed his recovery from drug and alcohol addiction to his supervisor, received lowered performance evaluations and a reassignment, filed an EEO complaint alleging disability discrimination and harassment, and then faced further actions such as a proposed fitness-for-duty exam and being marked AWOL. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of retaliation through temporal proximity between his protected EEO activity and adverse actions, and that the defendant had not articulated a legitimate non-discriminatory reason covering the full pattern of challenged conduct.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a petition filed by JeanChristophe Blanc, a French resident, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its implementing U.S. statute, seeking the return of his four-year-old daughter M. from the United States to France. The mother, Jennifer Morgan, had taken M. (who was born in France and holds dual citizenship) to the U.S. in 2008 and refused to return, leading to proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the petition and ordered M.'s return, finding that France was the child's habitual residence, that the mother had wrongfully retained her there, and that no exceptions such as the one-year filing deadline or grave risk of harm applied based on the evidence presented.

family law

In Swanigan v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., the plaintiff filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging employment discrimination and retaliation by her employer after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter, but she had pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases in which she initially omitted any mention of the claims or lawsuit. The defendant moved to dismiss on the basis of the nondisclosure, and after the plaintiff made late amendments to her bankruptcy filings that still undervalued the suit, the court converted the motion to one for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that judicial estoppel barred the claims because the plaintiff's failure to disclose appeared intentional and created an inconsistent position with the bankruptcy proceedings, where debtors must fully and honestly report assets and potential claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Plaintiff Davina Treadwell, a white female Customer Service Manager at American Airlines, who was terminated following an ice storm in 2006 that caused significant flight delays due to inadequate de-icing and leadership issues. She sued under the Tennessee Human Rights Act alleging reverse race discrimination and also brought a breach of contract claim, asserting that her discipline was unfair compared to other employees and that company rules created contractual protections. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice. It held that Treadwell failed to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination because she did not identify similarly situated non-white comparators who were treated more favorably, and her at-will employment status precluded any breach of contract claim since the employee handbook did not create binding contractual obligations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a photographer who held copyrights in images of Memphis landmarks and had granted limited, non-transferable licenses to the Memphis Convention and Visitors Bureau for specific uses. After the licenses expired, the Bureau and the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development allegedly continued using one of the photos in print materials, on websites, and in promotional materials without authorization. The plaintiff sued the Department and others for copyright infringement under federal law. The court granted the Department's motion to dismiss, holding that the Eleventh Amendment grants sovereign immunity to states and their agencies, shielding them from copyright suits in federal court. The court reasoned that Congress did not validly abrogate this immunity through the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, following Supreme Court precedent on state sovereign immunity.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

In this case, Plaintiff Cadence Bank sued Defendants Latting Road Partners, LLC and others, and the court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff after allowing limited discovery and considering the parties' filings. Defendants then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 to alter or amend the judgment, arguing they were entitled to file a sur-reply to the Plaintiff's reply and that the 19-day interval before the ruling was insufficient. The court denied the motion, holding that the local rules and scheduling order prohibit additional filings without leave of court, that Defendants did not request permission or demonstrate prejudice, and that 19 days provided adequate time to seek leave or move to strike. The decision emphasized that Rule 59 relief is an extraordinary remedy not intended to relitigate matters or present arguments that could have been raised earlier.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this putative class action, plaintiffs who obtained Tennessee commercial driver's licenses through Swift Transportation's training academy and testing program sued the company after state and federal authorities determined that Swift had violated regulations by using instructors as testers, falsifying skills test results, and improperly claiming out-of-state students as Tennessee residents, leading to the invalidation of their CDLs and requirements to retest. Plaintiffs asserted claims including negligence for the compromised licenses and resulting costs. Swift moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing in part that the economic loss doctrine barred the tort claims. The court denied the motion, holding that the economic loss doctrine—which originates in UCC-governed product liability cases—does not apply to claims involving the provision of services, and predicting that the Tennessee Supreme Court would permit negligence recovery in this context.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Broadnax v. Swift Transportation Corp., commercial truck drivers sued Swift after their Georgia CDLs were revoked due to improper testing and training provided by Swift's academy in Tennessee, which violated state and federal CDL rules; plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract, negligence, gross negligence, and money had and received as a putative class action. Swift moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim under the economic loss doctrine, and failure to join the State of Tennessee as an indispensable party. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the complaint adequately alleged cognizable claims, the economic loss doctrine did not apply to bar the tort claims here, and Tennessee was not an indispensable party under Rule 19 because its interests were not directly implicated and dismissal would leave plaintiffs without a remedy. The opinion applied Tennessee law and emphasized that factual allegations must be taken as true at the pleading stage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a putative class action by plaintiff Michael Pascarella against Swift Transportation Co. and state officials, stemming from the revocation of commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) that Swift had helped students obtain through its Tennessee training academy and third-party testing program between 2005 and 2008. After federal agents raided Swift's facilities and Tennessee notified other states of testing irregularities, New Jersey revoked the plaintiff's CDL and required retesting, prompting claims against Swift for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, unjust enrichment, negligence, and related declaratory and injunctive relief. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, addressing Swift's motion to dismiss after the case's transfer from New Jersey, granted the motion in part by dismissing the § 1983 claim while denying it as to the remaining claims, finding that administrative exhaustion requirements did not bar the state-law claims seeking monetary damages.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a putative class action by former students of Swift Transportation's truck driving academy whose Tennessee CDLs were revoked after the state determined that Swift's CDL testing from 2005 to 2008 did not comply with regulations. Plaintiffs sued Swift and the state Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law theories including unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of contract, and breach of good faith and fair dealing, seeking damages and other relief after their licenses were nullified without prior hearings and they faced retesting burdens. Swift moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on grounds of ripeness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the § 1983 claim but denied it as to the remaining claims, reasoning that administrative exhaustion was not required because money damages from Swift were unavailable through state licensing proceedings and that the alleged injuries were concrete and ripe for review.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a commercial loan default and foreclosure. In 2006, Cadence Bank lent $5 million to Latting Road Partners, secured by a deed of trust on Tennessee property and backed by personal guaranties from the company's principals. After the borrower defaulted on payments, the bank foreclosed and purchased the property at auction for $715,000, leaving an alleged deficiency of over $2 million. The bank sued the borrower and guarantors for the deficiency plus interest and fees. The court granted the bank's motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendants did not contest their liability for breach, that the foreclosure sale was conducted properly under Tennessee law, and that the defendants' challenges to the sale price based on prior appraisals failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved the United States suing Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Insurance Agency and American Surety Company to collect on three immigration bonds after the bonded aliens failed to appear or depart as required. The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue in the Western District of Tennessee or alternatively to transfer the case. The court denied dismissal, finding venue proper because the breaches occurred in Memphis, Tennessee, but granted transfer to the Northern District of California, reasoning that the defendants' operations, bond preparation, and witnesses are all located in California, making it a more convenient forum for efficient resolution, especially given related litigation there.

immigrationprocedure

The case concerned the EEOC's lawsuit on behalf of former Goodwill employee Nidella Mister, who alleged that her termination in August 2007 constituted race and sex discrimination as well as retaliation under Title VII after she complained to her supervisor about a racially insensitive remark. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the sex discrimination claim but denied it on the race discrimination and retaliation claims. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the termination was motivated by race or was retaliatory, based on the supervisor's comments, the timing of disciplinary actions, and the causal connection to the protected complaint. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework and found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, precluded summary judgment on those two claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a federal indictment charging defendant Dale Mardis with civil rights murder under 18 U.S.C. § 245 and related firearm use under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j) for the alleged killing of a local codes officer. Mardis moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that U.S. Representative Steve Cohen violated separation of powers by pressuring federal prosecutors to pursue charges after a state plea deal, including through public statements, campaign references, and proposed legislation. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report, overruled the defendant's objections, and denied the motion. The court reasoned that the congressman's actions amounted to permissible political advocacy rather than coercive interference with the executive branch's prosecutorial discretion, drawing parallels to established practices such as contempt-of-Congress referrals and amicus filings that do not breach constitutional separation of powers.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rights

The case involved Alvord Investments, LLC seeking a declaratory judgment and damages against its insurers, Hartford Financial Services Group and Twin City Fire Insurance Company, for denying coverage under a Directors and Officers liability policy for an arbitration claim brought by Dynamic Growth Partners against Alvord's subsidiary, Lenny's Franchisor, LLC. The insurers moved to dismiss, arguing that the policy's franchisee exclusion barred coverage for claims arising from disputes with franchisees. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint, holding that the exclusion applied because the underlying claims related to a franchise relationship, relieving the insurers of any duty to defend or indemnify. The decision rested on the plain language of the policy exclusion for claims by or on behalf of any franchisee, without needing to resolve other asserted grounds for dismissal.

business & regulatory