November 29–December 5, 2025
- Plaintiffs seek class certification related to a water main break that resulted in “a loss of water pressure throughout parts of the distribution system” for two days and “a precautionary boil water advisory” for six. The trial court denies class certification, and the Plaintiffs appeal. Tennessee Court of Appeals: “[W]hile the water main break is undisputed, its impact varied substantially among customers depending on location, duration, and use.” Thus, the trial court appropriately “determined that configuring the specific impact of the Water Loss Incident on a specific customer, including whether the water supply was inadequate, would require an individualized inquiry” unsuitable for class certification. So we affirm.
- After the relationship between the members of a two-member LLC deteriorates, the Minority Member decides that it wants out. The Minority Member thus initiates an arbitration as contemplated by the LLC’s operating agreement. That arbitration results in an order that “[t]he voluntary dissolution of [Minority Member] will trigger the mandatory dissolution of” the LLC. Afterward, when the Majority Member refuses to dissolve the LLC (and instead seeks to operate it as a single member), the Minority Member moves to confirm the award and compel dissolution, which the Majority Member opposes based on various legal theories. The trial court grants the motion to confirm and orders dissolution, and the Majority Member affirms. Tennessee Court of Appeals: No error here. “[T]he dissolution avoidance statute and issue were briefed in the arbitration proceeding” where the Majority Member lost. Arbitration awards also are subject to extremely deferential review, so “whether the arbitration panel correctly decided the dissolution avoidance issue as a matter of fact or a matter of law is beyond our review.” Thus, we affirm.
Firm Updates
New brief! One of the unsettled issues left to resolve under the Tennessee Public Participation Act is whether granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim moots a defendant’s claims under the Tennessee Public Participation Act. The answer is no; among other reasons, “a case in which attorney’s fees are available to the plaintiff only under an alternative ground”—precisely the situation at issue here—has been characterized as an “easy to imagine exception” to prudential practices against adjudicating alternative claims. Read all about it here: https://horwitz.law/wp-content/uploads/Principal-Brief-of-Eriana-Pitts-Stampfiled.pdf
New whitepaper! Given plaintiffs’ increasing (mis)use of the tort, we’ve noticed a significant uptick in cases that present abuse of process claims. So we’ve drafted this whitepaper on Defending Against Abuse of Process Claims in Tennessee, which are rarely viable.
