Anderson v. Federal Express

W.D. Tennessee

Anderson v. Federal Express

DecidedMay 26, 2026

Docket2:24-cv-02927

StatusUnknown

This text of Anderson v. Federal Express (Anderson v. Federal Express) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. Federal Express, (W.D. Tenn. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

ANDERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:24-cv-02927-BCL-tmp ) FEDERAL EXPRESS, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Federal Express’s (“FedEx”) Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 42) under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The Motion is DENIED for two reasons. First, Defendant’s motion is premised on a legal issue currently governed by binding precedent, as the Court noted in its Order denying summary judgment. Hope that the Sixth Circuit might backtrack on its binding precedent, returning to the approach taken in the earlier cases Defendant cites, is not a “substantial ground for difference of opinion,” even if that backtracking might eventually happen. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); U.S. ex rel. Elliott v. Brickman Grp. Ltd., LLC, 845 F. Supp. 2d 858, 863–64 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Kraus v. Bd. of Cnty. Road Comm’rs of the Cnty. of Kent, 364 F.2d 919, 922 (6th Cir. 1966). Second, an interlocutory appeal at this point would not “materially advance the outcome of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); W. Tenn. Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 138 F.Supp.2d 1015, 1026 (W.D.Tenn.2000). We are not at the threshold of this litigation; rather, trial-related proceedings are all that remain. For confirmation, consider that Defendant asks the Court to stay the trial pending disposition of any interlocutory appeal. But the more efficient thing to do at this point is to deny the Motion and allow Defendant to take its appeal, if needed, after the trial has concluded. See In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig., 741 F. Supp. 2d 844, 851 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). For both of these independently sufficient reasons, the

Motion is DENIED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant FedEx’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 42) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 26th day of May, 2026. s/Brian C. Lea BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

ANDERSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2:24-cv-02927-BCL-tmp ) FEDERAL EXPRESS, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Federal Express’s (“FedEx”) Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 42) under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The Motion is DENIED for two reasons. First, Defendant’s motion is premised on a legal issue currently governed by binding precedent, as the Court noted in its Order denying summary judgment. Hope that the Sixth Circuit might backtrack on its binding precedent, returning to the approach taken in the earlier cases Defendant cites, is not a “substantial ground for difference of opinion,” even if that backtracking might eventually happen. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); U.S. ex rel. Elliott v. Brickman Grp. Ltd., LLC, 845 F. Supp. 2d 858, 863–64 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (citing Kraus v. Bd. of Cnty. Road Comm’rs of the Cnty. of Kent, 364 F.2d 919, 922 (6th Cir. 1966). Second, an interlocutory appeal at this point would not “materially advance the outcome of the litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); W. Tenn. Chapter of Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. City of Memphis, 138 F.Supp.2d 1015, 1026 (W.D.Tenn.2000). We are not at the threshold of this litigation; rather, trial-related proceedings are all that remain. For confirmation, consider that Defendant asks the Court to stay the trial pending disposition of any interlocutory appeal. But the more efficient thing to do at this point is to deny the Motion and allow Defendant to take its appeal, if needed, after the trial has concluded. See In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litig., 741 F. Supp. 2d 844, 851 (W.D. Tenn. 2010). For both of these independently sufficient reasons, the

Motion is DENIED. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Defendant FedEx’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (Doc. 42) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 26th day of May, 2026. s/Brian C. Lea BRIAN C. LEA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anderson v. Federal Express, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-federal-express-tnwd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack