This appeal concerns a detainer action. Lee Dodgson (“Dodgson”) sued Cheryl M. Williams (“Williams”) in the Knox County General Sessions Court (“the General Sessions Court”). The General Sessions Court ruled in Dodgson’s favor. Williams appealed to the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Circuit Court”). Dodgson, the plaintiff in this matter, filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) for failure to state a claim. The Circuit Court granted Dodgson’s motion and dismissed Williams’ appeal. Williams appeals to this Court, arguing among other things that, while a motion for summary judgment might have been appropriate, a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was unavailable to Dodgson. We hold that Dodgson, as the plaintiff in this matter, could not use a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion as a means to dismiss Williams’ appeal. We vacate the Circuit Court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

For the week of August 15, 2022 - August 19, 2022

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. A physician group fired Rachel Post, a nurse, months after she suffered an accident. The group’s subsequent bankruptcy impeded Post’s efforts to hold it liable for employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). She instead sued the hospital at which she worked. Even though this hospital did not employ her, Post argues on appeal that two statutes give her the ability to enforce the ADA’s employment protections against non-employers. Her claim raises both a novel legal question and a settled one.

Turning to the settled question, the civil-conspiracy provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 authorizes a damages suit when two or more parties “conspire” to “depriv[e]” “any person or class of persons” of “the equal protection of the laws” or the “equal privileges and immunities under the laws[.]” Id. § 1985(3). Does this provision permit a plaintiff to assert a conspiracy claim against an entity that is not the plaintiff’s employer for the deprivation of an ADA-protected employment right? Our answer: No, our precedent holds that disability discrimination does not fall within § 1985(3). See Bartell v. Lohiser, 215 F.3d 550, 559 (6th Cir. 2000). These conclusions require us to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the hospital.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Mohamed Sy and Doshaun Edwards (the Plaintiffs) brought this qui tam action against their former employer, Oakland Physicians Medical Center, LLC, d/b/a Pontiac General Hospital, and against Sanyam Sharma, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Pontiac General Hospital (the Defendants). The Plaintiffs filed their complaint under seal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730, giving the United States 60 days to investigate the claims and determine whether to intervene in the case. The government filed several ex parte motions to extend the investigation period, which ultimately spanned two-and-a-half years and ended when the government filed a notice electing not to intervene. The district court unsealed the complaint three days later and ordered the Plaintiffs to serve the Defendants, triggering the 90-day period during which the Plaintiffs were required to effectuate service of process pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But the Plaintiffs did not serve the Defendants until approximately 50 days after the time to effect service had expired.

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for insufficient service of process. The court granted the motion, concluding that the Plaintiffs had failed to establish good cause for their delay and declining to grant a discretionary extension of time. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. The Federal Tort Claims Act broadly waives sovereign immunity for tort claims against the United States, but also claws back that immunity in several instances by stating exceptions. We are called today to answer whether a federal employee’s use of false testimony and forged documents to secure an indictment from a state grand jury falls within one of those exceptions, the so-called discretionary-function exception. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2680(a). If so, the government would be entitled to sovereign immunity and a district court would not have subject-matter jurisdiction over such a claim. But because we hold that it does not, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this consolidated appeal, Defendants Rossen Iossifov and Dimitrious Brown challenge the district court’s judgments after they were convicted and sentenced on Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”) charges, see 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), and, in Iossifov’s case, an additional charge for conspiring to launder money, see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the Court AFFIRMS Defendant Iossifov’s convictions and sentence and AFFIRMS Defendant Brown’s sentence.

A Madison County jury convicted the Petitioner, Trimon J. Pruitt, of one count of second degree murder, and the trial court sentenced him to serve twenty-four years, at 100%. The Petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Trimon Pruitt, No. W2018-00039-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 1501552, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Apr. 4, 2019), Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application denied (Tenn. Aug 19, 2019). The Petitioner filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court dismissed after a hearing. We affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment.

The Defendant, Raymond Paul Lankey, appeals the trial court’s order imposing confinement after finding that the Defendant violated his probation. The Defendant’s probation began in December 2019, when he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in exchange for an effective three-year sentence, with two years, eleven months and eight days to be served on supervised probation. In July 2021, a probation violation warrant was issued, the Defendant’s second, alleging multiple violations. After a hearing, the trial court revoked the Defendant’s probation, ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in confinement. On appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and when it ordered him to confinement. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

This appeal is a landlord-tenant dispute involving issues of liquidated damages and material breach of contract. The landlord filed a civil warrant in general sessions court to recover an early termination fee and other related fees pursuant to the parties’ lease agreement. The general sessions court entered a judgment in favor of the landlord finding that the early termination fee was reasonable and was not a penalty. The tenants appealed the judgment to the circuit court. The circuit court also entered a judgment in favor of the landlord finding that the early termination fee was reasonable and was not a penalty and that the landlord did not breach the lease agreement. The tenants appeal. We affirm as modified and remand to the circuit court for calculation of damages.

Following the entry of a default judgment against a mother who failed to answer the petition to terminate her parental rights, the trial court terminated the mother’s parental rights to her child on the grounds of (1) abandonment by failure to establish a suitable home; (2) substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan; (3) persistence of conditions; and (4) failure to manifest an ability and willingness to personally assume custody or financial responsibility. The trial court further found that termination of the mother’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest. The mother moved to set aside the default judgment. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment. We affirm the trial court’s conclusion that clear and convincing evidence supports the aforementioned grounds for termination. However, we remand for the trial court to determine whether the termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the best interest of the child pursuant to the new statutory factors which became effective on the date the petition was filed.