In this appeal, we conclude that the original legal controversy was extinguished as moot prior to the trial court’s entry of judgment. As such, we vacate the trial court’s order as advisory and dismiss the appeal.

Sisters filed counter-complaints related to the enforcement of a written contract. The trial court ruled that the contract was missing an essential term and therefore could not be enforced. The trial court, however, awarded the plaintiff a judgment in quantum meruit. We affirm.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Julie C. W. (“Wife”) sued Frank Mitchell W. Jr. (“Husband”) for divorce in the Circuit Court for Davidson County (“the Trial Court”). After a trial, the Trial Court divided the marital estate, set child support and alimony, and entered a parenting plan. Wife appeals, raising a number of issues. In one issue, Wife argues that the Trial Court placed inordinate weight on the fact that Husband is 16 years older than her in awarding him roughly 59% of the marital estate, even though his earning power is substantially greater than hers. We agree. We vacate the Trial Court’s division of the marital estate and remand for a new and equitable division that is as close to a 50/50 division as possible, based upon the specific facts of this case. However, on all other issues, we discern no reversible error by the Trial Court. We thus affirm, in part, and vacate, in part, the Trial Court’s judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

A husband filed a petition to retroactively reduce or terminate his alimony obligation, claiming he had no income during the relevant time period. The husband also sought to recover payment from his former wife for half of the remaining marital debt based on his interpretation of the final divorce decree. The trial court denied both requests. We conclude that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court’s finding that the husband’s ability to pay remained unchanged. Based on the clear language of the final divorce decree and a subsequent agreed order, we also conclude that the wife was not responsible for the remaining debt. So we affirm.

This is a termination of parental rights case, focusing on Jeremy C. and Jessica C., the minor children (“the Children”) of Grace C. (“Mother”) and Jonathan H. (“Father”). The Children were originally removed from Mother’s home in December 2014 upon an emergency petition filed by Mother’s cousin in the Hickman County Juvenile Court (“juvenile court”). At the time of removal, Father had been incarcerated for approximately two years. The Children were then placed with Mother’s cousin and her husband while also receiving services from the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (“DCS”). In March 2015, the juvenile court adjudicated the Children dependent and neglected. Upon a petition for relinquishment subsequently filed by the cousin and her husband, the Children were taken into DCS’s protective custody via an order entered by the juvenile court in March 2016. Following a hearing and upon DCS’s allegations that the Children had been severely abused while in the care of Mother and while residing with Mother’s former paramour, the juvenile court entered an agreed order in September 2016, adjudicating the Children dependent and neglected and severely abused. In July 2017, DCS filed a petition in the Hickman County Circuit Court (“trial court”) to terminate the parental rights of Mother and Father to the Children. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted the petition as to both parents.1 As pertinent to this appeal, the trial court found that statutory grounds existed to terminate Mother’s parental rights upon its finding by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had (1) abandoned the Children by willfully failing to visit them, (2) failed to substantially comply with the reasonable responsibilities and requirements of the permanency plans, (3) severely abused the Children, and (4) failed to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody of or financial responsibility for the Children. The trial court further found by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Mother’s parental rights was in the Children’s best interest. Mother has appealed. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the Children.

This case involves a petition to modify a parenting plan. Specifically, Father filed a petition to modify the parties’ residential parenting schedule, arguing that a material change of circumstances had occurred. After a hearing on the matter, the trial court found that Father had failed to prove a material change of circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 36-6-101(a)(2)(C). For the reasons contained herein, we affirm the trial court.

The employee, a truck driver, suffered injuries when he fell while exiting his truck. The employer accepted the claim as compensable and provided workers’ compensation benefits. At trial, the employer raised the affirmative defense of willful misconduct. The trial court concluded that the employer failed to establish the affirmative defense and awarded benefits based on the permanent impairment rating admitted into evidence. The employee has appealed. After careful consideration, we affirm the trial court’s order and certify it as final.

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Online shopping has transformed American life. Gone is the heyday of shopping malls and in-person retail. Instead, Americans increasingly choose to make purchases online. Although digital marketplaces may not require the same type of upkeep and maintenance as brick-and-mortar businesses, someone still manages them. This case concerns the responsibilities of companies that operate marketplaces facilitating online transactions between consumers and vendors.

The prime example of the modern digital marketplace is Amazon.com, Inc. Amazon operates a website where, among other things, third-party vendors sell their goods to consumers. Because Amazon’s marketplace operates as a neutral intermediary between consumers and third-party vendors, courts have typically not found it liable for trademark-infringing goods sold through its platform. See, e.g., Multi Time Mach., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 804 F.3d 930, 938–39 (9th Cir. 2015); Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C13-1932RSM, 2015 WL 4394673, at *6 (W.D. Wash. July 16, 2015). This case turns on whether Redbubble, Inc., an Australia-based online retailer, enjoys similar immunity from trademark-infringement claims arising from products displayed on and sold through its digital marketplace. The Ohio State University (OSU) argues that Redbubble’s marketplace model differs from those used by Amazon, eBay, and other passive e-commerce facilitators. So OSU alleges that Redbubble violated the Lanham Act and Ohio’s right-of-publicity statute because it acted less like a hands-off intermediary and more like a company that creates knock-off goods. Because Redbubble’s marketplace involves creating Redbubble products and garments that would not have existed but for Redbubble’s enterprise, we find that the district court erred by entering summary judgment for Redbubble under an overly narrow reading of the Lanham Act. Thus, we REVERSE and REMAND.

PER CURIAM. Kenneth B. Kimball appeals a district court order denying his motion for compassionate release, filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The parties have waived oral argument, and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

We AFFIRM the district court’s order denying Kimball’s motion for compassionate release.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. This case arises from the investigation and eventual expulsion of John Doe from the Michigan State University College of Human Medicine (“CHM”) for allegedly sexually assaulting two women, Roe 1 and Roe 2, on the night of the school’s formal dance.

Because the lengthy hearing, complete with in person cross-examination, gave the RO ample opportunity to judge credibility and view the witness’s demeanor, and any probative value of forcing them to answer every question is outweighed by the university’s interests, we affirm the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion to dismiss.