KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Seldom is so ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis. The gravamen of Kevin Hardwick’s complaint is that his bloodstream contains trace quantities of five chemicals—which are themselves part of a family of thousands of chemicals whose usage is nearly ubiquitous in modern life. Hardwick does not know what companies manufactured the particular chemicals in his bloodstream; nor does he know, or indeed have much idea, whether those chemicals might someday make him sick; nor, as a result of those chemicals, does he have any sickness or symptoms now. Yet, of the thousands of companies that have manufactured chemicals of this general type over the past half-century, Hardwick has chosen to sue the ten defendants present here. His allegations regarding those defendants are both collective—rarely does he allege an action by a specific defendant—and conclusory. Yet Hardwick sought to represent a class comprising nearly every person “residing in the United States”—a class from which, under Civil Rule 23(c), nobody could choose to opt out. And as relief for his claims, Hardwick asked the district court to appoint a “Science Panel”—whose conclusions, he said, “shall be deemed definitive and binding on all the parties[.]”

The district court, for its part, certified a class comprising every person residing in the State of Ohio—some 11.8 million people. The defendants now appeal that order, arguing (among many other things) that Hardwick lacks standing to bring this case. We agree with that argument, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case.

For the week of November 20, 2023 - November 24, 2023

Sean Williams, a prison escapee indicted in connection with multiple counts of state and federal child sex charges as well as rape charges, has been captured in Florida after a month-long manhunt, KnoxNews reports. Williams had escaped from a transport van while being moved from Kentucky to the U.S. District Court in Greeneville. His alleged crimes and arrest have become the subject of several lawsuits in Johnson City, where he lived and worked.

The Governor’s Council for Judicial Appointments is now accepting applications for the Tennessee Supreme Court vacancy that will be created by the retirement of Justice Roger A. Page effective Aug. 31, 2024. Interested applicants must be licensed attorneys who are at least 35 years of age, have been a resident of the state for five years and are currently a resident of Tennessee’s Eastern or Western Grand Division. Applicants must complete the designated application and submit it to the Administrative Office of the Courts by noon CST on Dec. 11. Get full application instructions on the court's website. The council will meet on Jan. 4-5 to hold a public hearing and interviews for the vacancy. Additional details about that meeting will be released soon. Questions about the process should be directed to Assistant General Counsel John Jefferson.

Need last minute CLE? The TBA will have everything you need to meet your yearly requirement! Sign up now to stay in the loop as TBA launches its Year End CLE event on Friday. This annual tradition will offer hour-based packages (ranging from six to 15 hours of credit), topical packages, live interactive webcasts and more than 200 programs on demand. Want to get started before Friday? Check out the courses available now at cle.tba.org. Don’t forget to use the prepaid credits that come with your TBA Complete Membership and save on your CLE costs. Not a member? Join now to start saving.

Daryl Hall, one half of the iconic music duo Hall & Oates, has sued and obtained a restraining order against John Oates. Though much of the suit and the order remain under seal, the AP reports that Hall is trying to stop Oates from selling his share in the joint venture Whole Oats Enterprises LLP to a management company. Hall argues the sale would violate a business agreement the two had forged. The suit was filed in Nashville on Nov. 15. Chancellor Russell Perkins issued a temporary restraining order the next day. The case is set for a court hearing on Thursday.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has unveiled a proposal that would require lawyers to certify that they either did not rely on artificial intelligence (AI) programs to draft briefs or that humans reviewed the accuracy of any text generated by AI in their filings. The court’s proposed rule appears to be the first by any of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts aimed at regulating the use of generative AI tools by lawyers appearing before it, Reuters reports.

This appeal concerns the denial of a motion to intervene. John A. Watson, Jr. (“Watson”) moved to intervene in a lawsuit filed by James L. Coxwell, Sr. (“Coxwell”), by and through his attorney-in-fact, Cam Coxwell Shiflett, against Watco Communities, LLC (“Watco”) and MountainBrook Assisted Living, LLC (“MountainBrook”) (“the Companies,” collectively). Watson and Coxwell were once in business together but had a falling out. Coxwell sued to recover money he had loaned the Companies. Coxwell and the Companies reached a settlement, and an agreed order was entered to that effect. Watson’s motion to intervene came after entry of the agreed order and his having known about the litigation for many months. Watson objects to language in the agreed order between Coxwell and the Companies providing for joint and several liability by the Companies, which he says is unfavorable to his interests. The Chancery Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) denied Watson’s motion to intervene, citing untimeliness. Watson appeals. We find no abuse of discretion in the Trial Court’s denial of Watson’s motion to intervene. We affirm.

Rebecca F. B. (“Mother”) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her children Christabell B., Ashtynn B., Colton B., and Elan B. (Colton B. and Elan B. collectively, “Minor Children”; the Minor Children, Christabell B., and Ashtynn B. collectively, “Children”).2 The Chancery Court for Maury County (“trial court”) granted a default judgment against Mother and terminated her parental rights based on several statutory grounds: abandonment; persistent conditions; and failure to manifest an ability and willingness to assume legal and physical custody. We conclude that the ground of abandonment was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, and therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment as to that ground. However, we affirm the trial court’s findings as to the other statutory grounds and its finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in the Minor Children’s best interests.

Petitioner, Detrick Turner, appeals the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in finding that he received the effective assistance of counsel. He argues that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate and failing to raise additional issues on appeal. Following our review of the entire record, including the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.