10 results for 'judge:"Poplin"'.
J. Poplin partially grants the business defendants' motion to compel discovery in this lawsuit brought by timeshare developers asserting claims under the Lanham Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, based on the defendants' alleged efforts to disrupt their valid timeshare contracts. The timeshare plaintiffs are required to respond to certain requests, including requests for documents related to "bad debt" and "exit fees" stemming from timeshare cancellations.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 3:20cv251, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Consumer Law, Interference With Contract, Discovery
J. Poplin denies the defendant manufacturing company's motion for summary judgment in this lawsuit brought by a former employee alleging failure to accommodate and disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The former employee, who had epilepsy and suffered multiple seizures at work, was allegedly terminated from his employment as a machine operator. There are issues of fact precluding summary judgment, specifically as to his requested accommodations.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: February 13, 2024, Case #: 3:21cv332, NOS: Amer w/Disabilities-Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Ada / Rehabilitation Act, Employment Discrimination
J. Poplin grants in part the parties' joint motion to seal confidential information. The parties have mostly supported their request to seal information "relating to third-parties, financial information, or alleged trade secret information." Also, the proposed redactions to the defendant company's memorandum in support of its summary judgment motion will be allowed.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: January 16, 2024, Case #: 3:19cv508, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, Discovery
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Poplin grants the defendant gun manufacturers' motion to preclude the opinion of an undisclosed expert in this product liability lawsuit alleging that a gun owner was injured when a pistol "unintentionally discharged." The doctor was not timely disclosed, as required, and the gun owner does not argue that the delay was "harmless or substantially justified."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: November 9, 2023, Case #: 3:21cv31, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Procedure, Product Liability, Experts
J. Poplin denies the individual plaintiffs' motion to determine claim of privilege. Specifically, they ask the court to find that the defendant bank waived attorney-client privilege as it relates to certain documents, or alternatively for the court "to conduct an in-camera inspection of each document." The court concludes that in-camera review is unnecessary and that "fairness does not warrant disclosure."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: October 24, 2023, Case #: 3:19cv138, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Discovery, Privilege, Class Action
J. Poplin grants in part the resort plaintiffs' motions for sanctions in their lawsuit against a company that allegedly "disrupts valid contracts between timeshare developers and their customers." Attorney fees are appropriate as to the plaintiffs' second motion for sanctions, though no sanctions are warranted with respect to the first motion. Additionally, the parties should meet and confer to resolve the amount of the fees due.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: September 29, 2023, Case #: 3:20cv251, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Sanctions, Consumer Law, Attorney Fees
J. Poplin partially grants the defendant companies' consolidated dismissal motion in this lawsuit alleging breach of contract and promissory fraud in relation to a disputed business agreement. The plaintiff paper supplier indicates that it expected to be the defendant companies' sole supplier. However, there was no "fully integrated written agreement," and the purchase orders at issue "do not evidence an exclusivity agreement." Accordingly, the contract claim is dismissed. Also, the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the parent company, which is incorporated and based in Mexico.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Tennessee , Judge: Poplin, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv459, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, Jurisdiction, Contract