Curtis L. Collier

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee district Appointed by Bill Clinton (Democratic) 20 signed orders read

How Judge Collier decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In an FCA qui tam suit, the judge rejects a facial Article II challenge to the qui tam device: relators pursuing non-intervened claims are not 'Officers' subject to the Appointments Clause because their role lacks the tenure, continuing duration, and independent authority that would require presidential appointment -- a government litigant can restrict or take over the relator's role at any time.

“Relators do not 'occupy a continuing position established by law.' Their office is not static in the sense that their roles are specific to the particular relators bringing the claim.”

Applying the Sixth Circuit's post-Clark v. A&L Homecare standard for FLSA collective notice, the judge credits detailed party stipulations and side-by-side job postings as sufficient to show a 'strong likelihood' that proposed collective members are similarly situated, even under the heightened standard that replaced the old 'modest showing' test.

“the Court concludes that Plaintiff Shelton has shown a strong likelihood that the Sales Coordinators in the FLSA Collective are similarly situated to Plaintiff Shelton.”

Procedural preferences

On summary judgment, the judge holds litigants strictly to citing the specific record evidence supporting their factual disputes and declines to search a voluminous record on a party's behalf, including disregarding an attorney's own factual assertions when they are not grounded in personal knowledge or a sworn source.

“This Court declines to search the extensive record in this case for evidence that would allow Plaintiffs' claims to survive summary judgment.”

On motions in limine, the judge treats cross-examination and jury instructions -- not exclusion -- as the default tool for shaky-but-relevant evidence, reserving exclusion for late-disclosed evidence that genuinely surprises the opposing side under the Sixth Circuit's five-factor harmlessness test.

“Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.”

Faced with a parallel, already-indicted state criminal prosecution arising from the same facts as a civil suit, the judge readily grants a full stay pending the criminal case's resolution rather than manage piecemeal discovery around a defendant's anticipated invocation of the Fifth Amendment.

“the Court concludes that staying the case as to only Simmons would be more burdensome on the parties then staying the case in its entirety.”

Cautions

The judge enforces filing-fee and service deadlines strictly against pro se litigants who ignore express warnings, dismissing under Rule 41(b) once a warned deadline passes without excuse.

“The deadline has passed, and Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or otherwise communicated with the Court... Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this action under Rule 41(b).”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Pedigo v. Astrue
1:09-cv-00093-CLC-SKL · 2010-04-02
Social security appeal (plaintiff) Denied

“DENIES Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Court File No. 13), GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Court File No. 19); AFFIRMS the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security; and DISMISSES the case.”

United States v. Hernandez
1:11-cr-00001-CLC-SKL · 2011-10-21
Motion for reconsideration (defendant) Denied

“the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to reopen sentencing or alter or amend the judgment (Court File No. 161)”

Motion to extend time (defendant) Moot / procedural

“the Court DENIES as MOOT Defendant's motion for an extension of time to self report.”

In re: Skelaxin (Metaxalone) Antitrust Litigation
1:12-md-02343-CLC-CHS · 2014-01-30
Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“The Court concludes the class in this case is not ascertainable... Accordingly, the Court will DENY End Payors' motion for class certification.”

Class certification (plaintiff) Denied

“For these reasons, the Court concludes Indirect Purchasers have failed to meet their burden on a motion for class certification. The Court will DENY Indirect Purchasers' motion.”

United States v. Silas
1:16-cr-00124-CLC-CHS · 2017-12-18
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“The Court will therefore DENY Defendant's motions to suppress the evidence derived from the wiretap (Doc. 145), the search of the cellphone (Doc. 147), and the photographic identification (Doc. 151).”

Abdullah v. Seals
3:21-cv-00104-CLC-HBG · 2021-03-26
Habeas petition (petitioner) Denied

“The petition for habeas corpus relief under §2241 [Doc. 2] will be DISMISSED without prejudice.”

AVE Greeneville, LLC v. First Community Bank of East Tennessee
2:23-cv-00022-CLC-CRW · 2024-03-28
Judgment on the pleadings (defendant) Granted

“Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief, the Court will GRANT Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. 21).”

Smith v. Specialty Networks, LLC (consolidated)
1:24-cv-00319-CLC-CHS · 2024-10-08
Motion to consolidate (plaintiff) Granted

“the parties' joint motions to consolidate their individual actions and appoint interim lead counsel... are GRANTED. J. Gerard Stranch, IV. is APPOINTED as Plaintiffs' Interim Lead Counsel. The cases are CONSOLIDATED under the caption for the first-filed action.”

United States v. O'Shae Smith
1:23-cr-00030-CLC-CHS · 2024-10-10
Motion to suppress (defendant) Denied

“Defendant's objection (Doc. 34) is OVERRULED and the report and recommendation (Doc. 30) is ACCEPTED. Defendant's motion to suppress (Doc. 17) is DENIED.”

Cook v. McMinn County, Tennessee
1:22-cv-00105-CLC-CHS · 2025-01-15
Motion for leave to file surreply (plaintiff) Denied

“Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply (Doc. 61) is DENIED.”

Bell v. Hamilton County, Tennessee
1:22-cv-00094-CLC-MJD · 2025-02-21
Summary judgment (defendant) Granted

“Defendant Hamilton County and Defendant Hammond's motions for summary judgment [Docs. 53, 55, 58, 60] will be GRANTED as to Plaintiffs' federal claims”

Summary judgment (defendant) Moot / procedural

“The John Doe Defendants' motion for summary judgment [Doc. 48] is DENIED as moot.”

Moore v. Lee
3:23-cv-00196-CLC-JEM · 2025-03-07
Motions to dismiss (defendant) Granted

“Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 50) will be GRANTED. This case will be DISMISSED without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court will be DIRECTED to close the case.”

Self v. Simmons
1:24-cv-00267-CLC-MJD · 2025-03-21
Motions to stay (defendant) Granted

“The Court will GRANT Simmons's motion to stay the case as to himself. (Doc. 11.) The Court will also GRANT TVA's motion to stay the case in its entirety. (Doc. 18.) Accordingly, the case will be STAYED as to all parties pending the resolution of Simmons's criminal case.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The sample includes commercial fraud and surety litigation, consumer credit, employment discrimination, racketeering, product-liability, wage-and-hour, telephone-consumer, Social Security, habeas, and housing-discrimination matters. Several cases settled or were voluntarily dismissed before a dispositive ruling, including matters that settled after summary-judgment briefing.

Put Judge Collier's record to work

Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Collier actually rules, not a generic AI guess.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Collier's own signed orders and cites them.