This interlocutory appeal arises from a pending divorce action. During discovery, the husband sought certain communications between the wife and her attorneys. During some of these meetings between the wife and her attorneys, a third party was present during discussions of whether the wife should report conduct by the husband to law enforcement. The wife could not identify which of the meetings the third party had been present and which she had not. Because the wife did not meet her burden of proof in demonstrating that attorney-client privilege applied to the communications, we affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

This appeal concerns an alleged breach of contract. Greg Calfee (“Mr. Calfee”), on behalf of Greg Calfee Builders LLC (“GCB”), and Neill MaGee (“Mr. MaGee”) signed an agreement (“the Contract”) whereby GCB would custom-build a home for Mr. MaGee and his wife, Diane MaGee (“the MaGees,” collectively). Mr. MaGee, citing a number of construction defects, later terminated GCB from the job and told Mr. Calfee that GCB could not come back despite GCB’s willingness and offer to correct the defects. GCB sued the MaGees in the Chancery Court for Bradley County (“the Trial Court”) seeking to recover money it alleged was still owed to it. Mr. MaGee filed a counterclaim. GCB filed a motion for summary judgment, which the Trial Court granted. The MaGees appeal. We find and hold, inter alia, that under both Tennessee caselaw and the Contract, Mr. MaGee was required to give GCB notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the defects, yet he failed to do so. GCB is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We affirm.

A general sessions court entered a one-year order of protection prohibiting the plaintiff from having contact with the defendants, who are the plaintiff’s ex-wife and the couple’s minor child. The plaintiff failed to appeal the order within ten days as required by statute. Forty-two days later, he filed a document in the chancery court titled “Petition to Enroll and Certify A Foreign Judgment and Appeal in Nature of Writ of Error.” The plaintiff attached to his pleading an incomplete copy of the couple’s 2008 Texas divorce decree that granted him parenting time with the minor child and asked the chancery court to hold a new hearing and determine whether the general sessions court erred by issuing the order of protection. The plaintiff later filed a motion asking for interim parenting time with the child. The defendants filed a notice of limited appearance, and among other things, asked the chancery court to dismiss the action for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. They also requested attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending the action, relying on statutes to support these requests. The chancery court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the appeal untimely and the method of appeal obsolete, and also determining that the petition for enrollment was defective on its face because the defendant had attached an incomplete copy of the Texas decree. The chancery court initially denied the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees and costs but granted their motion to alter or amend and ultimately awarded attorney’s fees and costs totaling $25,398.21. The plaintiff appealed, challenging only the award of attorney’s fees. The defendants asked for an award of attorney’s fees incurred on appeal. Before reaching these issues, however, the Court of Appeals sua sponte held that the chancery court erred by dismissing the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, ruling that the “writ of error remains an avenue for review of judgments of general sessions courts.” Rather than remanding the matter to the chancery court for consideration of the merits of the plaintiff’s writ of error appeal, however, the Court of Appeals also addressed the defendants’ challenge to the award of attorney’s fees. The intermediate appellate court ruled that a statute authorized the chancery court to award the defendants’ attorney’s fees for defending against the plaintiff’s writ of error appeal but not for fees incurred defending against the plaintiff’s petition to enroll the Texas divorce decree. As a result, the Court of Appeals vacated the award of attorney’s fees and remanded to the chancery court for a hearing and a determination of the fees incurred solely in defense of the plaintiff’s writ of error appeal. The Court of Appeals denied the defendants’ request for attorney’s fees on appeal. This Court granted the defendants’ application for permission to appeal. We hold that the chancery court correctly concluded that the writ of error is no longer a viable method of appeal in this State and dismissed the untimely appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We also hold that the chancery court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s request to enroll the Texas decree because he provided an incomplete copy of the decree. Finally, we hold that the chancery court correctly awarded the defendants’ attorney’s fees for defending against the plaintiff’s pleading and did not err by failing to limit the award to the writ of error appeal. For these reasons, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, reinstate the judgment of the chancery court in its entirety, and remand to the chancery court for a determination of the reasonable attorney’s fees the defendants have incurred and should be awarded for this appeal.

Grants & Denials List

June 22, 2020 - June 26, 2020

This appeal concerns a jury verdict in a slip and fall case. Geneva Jessica Day (“Plaintiff”), a resident of Beaver Hollow Apartments (“the Apartments”), sued Beaver Hollow L.P. (“BHLP”), which owned the Apartments, as well as Olympia Management, Inc. (“Olympia”) (“Defendants,” collectively), the entity BHLP contracted with to manage the Apartments, in the Circuit Court for Washington County (“the Trial Court”). Plaintiff was injured when she slipped on ice and snow in the Apartments’ parking lot. The jury allocated 49% of the fault to Plaintiff, 50% to Olympia, and 1% to BHLP. Defendants appeal. Defendants argue, among other things, that no material evidence supports the jury’s allocation of fault to BHLP. After a careful review of the record, we find no material evidence to support the jury’s verdict regarding BHLP, which exercised no actual control of the premises whatsoever. The Trial Court erred in denying Defendants’ motion for a directed verdict with respect to BHLP. As we may not reallocate fault, we vacate the judgment of the Trial Court, and remand for a new trial.

Grants & Denials List

June 15, 2020 - June 21, 2020

A Georgia resident, employed by a Tennessee company, filed a workers’ compensation claim in Georgia for an injury he sustained in Tennessee. Later, the employee also filed a workers’ compensation claim in Tennessee for the same injury. The Georgia State Board of Workers’ Compensation dismissed the Georgia claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Tennessee Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims held that the employee’s claim was not barred based on the election of remedies doctrine. In a split decision, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed, holding that the employee’s claim was barred because he had first pursued a claim for benefits in Georgia. We reverse and hold that the employee’s Tennessee claim is not barred because his Georgia claim had been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus the employee had no remedy to elect.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Matthew N. Fulton, DDS, PC, a dental practice in Linden, Michigan, brings this suit on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. Fulton alleges that his dental practice received a fax from Defendants in September 2016 that was an unsolicited advertisement under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227, but failed to include the requisite opt-out provision. Arguing that the fax did not qualify as an advertisement under the TCPA, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. This court reversed and remanded the case for additional proceedings. Matthew N. Fulton, D.D.S., P.C. v. Enclarity, Inc., 907 F.3d 948 (6th Cir. 2018). We denied the Defendants’ petition for rehearing by the panel and for rehearing en banc.

Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Enclarity Inc. v. Fulton, 140 S. Ct. 104 (2019). The Supreme Court issued an order—known as a grant, vacate, and remand order (GVR)—directing us to reconsider the appeal in light of its recent opinion in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (2019). “[O]ur law is clear that a GVR order does not necessarily imply that the Supreme Court has in mind a different result in the case, nor does it suggest that our prior decision was erroneous.” In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., 722 F.3d 838, 845 (6th Cir. 2013) (collecting cases). Rather, our task following the GVR is to “determine whether our original decision” to reverse the district court’s order was correct or whether PDR Network “compels a different resolution.” Id.

PDR Network does not impact the resolution of this case. Applying the standards governing dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, we find that Fulton has plausibly alleged that the fax was an unsolicited advertisement insofar as it alleged that the fax served as a pretext to send Fulton additional marketing materials. We REVERSE and REMAND this case for additional proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Appellant, Adonis Reynolds, pled guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to two counts of burglary of a vehicle, one count of fraudulent use of a credit card, two counts of theft, and one count of evading arrest. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he received an effective three-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC). The trial court granted the Appellant judicial diversion and placed him on supervised probation for three years. Subsequently, the trial court revoked his probation and his judicial diversion and ordered that he serve his effective three-year sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and judicial diversion. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner, Reginald McWilliams, acting pro se, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s denial of post-conviction relief for failure to prosecute on the part of the Petitioner. Because the record does not establish an abuse of process, we reverse the judgment of the post-conviction court and remand this matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.