Breach of Contract or Unjust Enrichment — Pick One
RST and Plaintiffs entered into an agreement to pursue the development of a solid waste transfer station for use by RST in Davidson County, Tennessee. RST had an affiliate company, RSI, that was not a party to the contract but which would have been involved in the project as it moved forward. At some point the principals of RST stated they were terminating the agreement. Plaintiffs sued both RST and RSI for, among other things, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
By Limits on the Applicability of the Discovery Rule
Plaintiff brought a shareholder derivative action against current and former officers and directors of First Horizon for alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Complaint asserted that the defendants pursued an aggressive growth strategy for First Horizon based on the origination of subprime mortgage loans, second lien mortgages, home equity loans, real estate construction loans to individual consumers, and commercial construction loans to single-family home builders without taking measures to control for risks inherent in this strategy. Plaintiff alleged that the acts of the defendants included the use of high-risk and unlawful banking practices, misleading financial reporting, and active concealment of their misconduct.
The Boyds Build Their Dream House and Sue the Contractor
The Boyds and Mr. Wise knew each other socially (apparently they played tennis together). During this relationship they each learned that the Boyds wanted to build a new house and that Mr. Wise was a contractor. From this apparently fortuitous match, many faults followed. With construction in the final set, a dispute arose between the parties. Mr. Wise’s construction company, Wise Construction LLC sued the Boyds. The Boyds answered and counter-sued that they were not party to a contract with Wise Construction LLC but with Mr. Wise individually, because when he signed the construction contract he did not sign in a representative capacity.
Discovery of Plaintiff’s Current Employment Records in Suit Against Former Employer
In lawsuit brought by plaintiff against her former employer, the former employer served a subpoena for plaintiff’s personnel records on plaintiff’s new employer. Plaintiff moved to quash and/or for a protective order. The Court held that the employment records of plaintiff’s current employer would not provide any information relating to whether plaintiff had previously been fired by the former employer. Hood v. Fiberweb, Inc., 2010 WL 4102219 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 18, 2010).
Older Entries