JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. We confront a question of first impression in this Circuit: when, under § 207(f) of the FLSA, do an employee’s job duties “necessitate” irregular hours?

A Montgomery County jury convicted the Defendant, Anthony Duane Gray, Jr., of assault, kidnapping, possession with intent to sell or deliver heroin, four counts of possession with the intent to sell or deliver four different scheduled drugs, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced him as a Multiple Offender to an effective sentence of fourteen years of incarceration. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever his offenses; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found during the search of a motel room; (3) the trial court erred with it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of two cell phones; (4) the State violated his right to due process by intentionally allowing false testimony; (5) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal to the charge of especially aggravated kidnapping; (6) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for kidnapping; and (7) the trial court erred when it denied his motion for new trial. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This is the second interlocutory appeal as of right, pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 10B, filed by the appellants seeking to recuse the trial judge in the underlying conservatorship action. After this Court entered its opinion and judgment in the first interlocutory appeal, the trial judge entered several orders before the mandate was entered with the trial court. In this second interlocutory appeal, appellants request, inter alia, that we declare those orders void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. After careful review, we determine that the stay of trial court proceedings imposed by this Court in the first interlocutory appeal remained in place until the mandate was entered. Taking into consideration the limits of our review in a Rule 10B appeal, we vacate the trial court’s orders entered between the time the appellants filed their second motion to recuse and the trial court’s ruling on the recusal motion. We also vacate the trial court’s order denying the second motion to recuse. Because the trial court’s order denying the second motion to recuse is vacated, all remaining matters in this second interlocutory appeal are pretermitted as moot.

The mother of an incarcerated person filed suit against the prison operator for injuries allegedly sustained when a chair in the prison visitation room collapsed as she sat in it. The trial court denied the mother’s motion for sanctions based upon allegations of spoliation of evidence. The trial court then granted summary judgment in favor of the prison operator. We affirm the trial court’s decisions on both motions.

The Circuit Court for Sevier County (“the Trial Court”) dismissed the motion for summary judgment filed by Stephen Boesch (“Plaintiff”) due to his failure to file a separate statement of undisputed material facts in accordance with Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 56.03. The Trial Court additionally denied Plaintiff’s oral motion for default judgment against Scott D. Hall (“Defendant”) and granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has appealed. Upon our review, we affirm the Trial Court’s judgment.

The employee sustained injuries to his right foot and leg while working for the employer in October 2020. Thereafter, in April 2022, the parties presented a proposed settlement to the trial court resolving the employee’s claim for an original award of permanent partial disability benefits. When the employee’s initial benefit period ended, the employee filed a petition for increased benefits, extraordinary relief, or permanent total disability. The employer denied the employee’s claim for additional benefits, asserting in part that the employee’s permanent work restrictions were unrelated to the work accident. Following a period of discovery, the employer filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the employee’s court-approved settlement for permanent partial disability benefits precluded, as a matter of law, any award of permanent total disability benefits. The employer further argued that the medical evidence did not support an award of extraordinary relief under the express terms of that statute. In addition, the employer filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum the employee had served on the employer’s vocational expert seeking the production of certain documents. In two separate orders, the trial court declined to rule on the employer’s motion for partial summary judgment prior to the compensation hearing, and it declined to quash the subpoena duces tecum. The employer has appealed both orders, which we consolidated for purposes of this appeal. Upon careful consideration of the record and arguments of counsel, we affirm in part and vacate in part the trial court’s orders and remand the case.

This is an appeal from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board which affirmed a judgment of the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims finding that Appellee Natacha Hudgins' back injury was compensable and that the date of her maximum medical improvement was January 6, 2022. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51. We affirm.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti recently joined a coalition of 26 other state attorneys general in sending a letter to Meta Platforms Inc. demanding that Instagram stop “monetizing child exploitation content.” The group cites recent articles in The Wall Street Journal and New York Times that suggest Meta promoted minor accounts to “likely pedophiles.” In announcing the move, Skrmetti said, “My office is already suing Meta for its harms to children's mental health, and this latest report only adds to my concern about the risks Meta poses to Tennessee kids. Meta needs to do a better job of using its vast resources to protect our vulnerable youth.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released a report to Congress — as required by the Unleashing American Innovators Act of 2022 — assessing the health and functionality of the participating patent pro bono programs. Details regarding the study findings, as well as a copy of the full report, are available here. The study found that the programs are successfully expanding access to the patent system to financially under-resourced independent inventors and small businesses.

Patent practitioners can volunteer through their local patent pro bono program. Visit tnpatents.org/for-attorneys or uspto.gov/probonopatents for more information on how to volunteer. The local program screens applicants using criteria that include: (1) household income, (2) knowledge of the patent system and (3) possession of an actual invention (not merely an idea) to ensure that each inventor or small business is a good candidate for assistance.

Our main event of the year is quickly approaching, and you will not want to miss out on the diverse and timely CLE programming we have lined up. Come join us for the 2024 Intellectual Property Law Forum at Belmont University College of Law on April 5 to learn about the latest on AI and copyright; AI and patent law and practice; IP issues within the alcohol world; and the intersection between IP and street art. Visit the TBA CLE course catalog for more details and to register. We also hope that you can stick around for a happy hour event directly following the forum to give you a chance to meet and interact with other section members. 

While the annual forum serves as our main event, the executive council strives to provide other valuable and enriching events for our members throughout the year. This year we would like to extend a sincere thank you to Patterson Intellectual Property Law for hosting a Fireside Chat with Regional Director Hope Shimabuku of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Texas Regional Office in early September 2023. This event provided a unique opportunity to interface with USPTO leadership and was a great success thanks to all of our section members who attended.

On behalf of the executive council, thank you for your past and continued support of the TBA Intellectual Property Section!

— Lauren Sherwood, TBA Intellectual Property Law Section Chair