John Gilpin Heyburn 2

The case arose from a mortgage fraud scheme in which a Prajna employee tricked Texas Capital Bank into wiring over $3 million in nonexistent loan funds to First American Title as escrow agent; the employee then induced First American Title to redirect six of the wires to Prajna, while later wires went to a fraudulent Venture Title account the bank opened at National City Bank. Texas Capital and its insurers sued First American Title for breach of contract and related duties, seeking recovery of the losses. On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court denied both sides' requests as to the initial six wires but granted First American Title's motion regarding the $1.3 million National City wires, dismissing those claims with prejudice. The court reasoned that even assuming a breach of duty, the causal link between First American Title's conduct and the later National City transfers was too attenuated to establish legal causation under Kentucky law.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Wilson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, the plaintiff sued his insurer claiming bad faith and delayed payment of $50,000 in uninsured motorist benefits under Kentucky statutes after a 2009 accident with an uninsured driver that left him with medical bills partly covered by Medicare. The core dispute was whether State Farm acted improperly by waiting roughly two months to pay the policy limits until it could confirm the exact Medicare lien amount, after the plaintiff rejected proposals to name Medicare as a payee or escrow the funds. The court granted summary judgment to State Farm and denied the plaintiff's motion, dismissing the case with prejudice. It reasoned that State Farm had a reasonable basis to delay under the bad-faith standard from Wittmer v. Jones because federal Medicare regulations made the insurer potentially liable for the lien, mere delay alone does not establish bad faith, and the insurer's conduct was not outrageous.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityhealthcare

William Webb sued Humana Inc. and Humana Insurance Co. under Kentucky law for disability discrimination in the forms of disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation, as well as wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress, stemming from his termination after absences related to Multiple Myeloma cancer treatment. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on all claims, finding that Webb failed to establish a prima facie case under the pre-ADAAA ADA standards because he could not show he was substantially limited in a major life activity or a qualified individual, and that his proposed accommodations like additional leave were not reasonable or requested properly. The court noted the analytic difficulty that Webb's absences were both a consequence of his alleged disability and the stated reason for his termination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

Shamrock Marketing sued Bridgestone Bandag alleging that Bandag's Q-Fund program, which credits franchisees for purchases of precured tread rubber and requires use of those credits on Bandag curing envelopes and accessories, created an unlawful tying arrangement violating Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Bandag moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of standing, failure to allege an actual tying arrangement, and flawed relevant market definitions. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing counts that failed to adequately plead market power for per se liability or relied on improper market definitions while allowing claims to proceed under rule-of-reason analysis where sufficient allegations of economic power in the tying market were made.

business & regulatory

In Davis v. Global Client Solutions, LLC, a Kentucky couple sued debt settlement providers GHS, Global Client Solutions, and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust, alleging violations of Kentucky's Debt Adjusting and Consumer Protection statutes plus civil conspiracy after the providers collected fees but made no payments to creditors. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under agreements the plaintiffs had signed as part of the program. The court denied the motions, holding that the arbitration clauses were substantively unconscionable under Kentucky contract law because they restricted available remedies to actual and direct damages and permitted the defendants to select the arbitrator without the plaintiffs' consent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether TracFone Wireless, a provider of prepaid mobile phone service sold mainly through retailers, must collect Kentucky's monthly CMRS 911 emergency service fees from customers under a 1998 statute and its later amendments. The original statute required providers to collect the fee as part of normal monthly billing, a process that does not apply to prepaid customers who buy minutes in advance without ongoing accounts or bills. The court interpreted the 2005 and 2006 amendments as expanding permissible collection methods to accommodate prepaid providers while preserving the requirement to remit the fees to the CMRS Board. It concluded that TracFone must collect and remit the charges, as the statutory changes created feasible options and TracFone had not shown actual impossibility of compliance.

business & regulatory

This case involves twenty-seven Taco Bell restaurant operators suing Dairy Farmers of America and its officers for allegedly overcharging for cheese in breach of a supply contract between Dairy Farmers and UFPC, the purchasing arm of Taco Bell's parent company, with the operators claiming rights as third-party beneficiaries. Defendants removed the case from Kentucky state court to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction by arguing that twenty-five non-diverse plaintiffs were fraudulently joined because a forum selection clause in the contract required their claims to be brought only in the jurisdictions of their principal places of business. The court remanded the case to state court, finding that the removing defendants failed to meet the high burden of showing fraudulent joinder. It reasoned that the plaintiffs had colorable claims, that the forum selection clause could potentially be waived or not strictly bar the Kentucky action, and that all doubts must be resolved in favor of remand due to lack of complete diversity.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a plaintiff's claim for life insurance benefits after her son died following submission of an application and initial premium payment; the insurer, Bankers Life, issued a conditional receipt but later denied coverage more than a month after the death, citing missing medical records related to a recommended colonoscopy. Plaintiff alleged breach of contract and bad faith denial, arguing the denial was improperly influenced by knowledge of the death, while Bankers moved for summary judgment asserting it acted in good faith as a matter of law. The court denied summary judgment on the core claims, finding genuine disputes over whether underwriters knew of the death before denying coverage, the thoroughness of the medical review process, and the timing of the decision that required jury resolution, while dismissing ancillary claims for untimely notification and under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a putative class action by residential customer Dana Bowers against Windstream telecommunications companies alleging overcharges for services and misleading bill descriptions in violation of federal and state statutes and common law, including failures to properly update tariffs filed with the FCC and Kentucky PSC. The matter came before the court on defendants' motion to dismiss or stay. The court partially granted the motion by staying Count III under the primary jurisdiction doctrine while denying the motion as to the remaining counts. The core reasoning is that disputes over regulated utility tariffs and certain statutory claims require initial agency expertise from the FCC or PSC, whereas other claims could proceed directly in federal court.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

Maker's Mark sued Cuervo and Diageo, alleging that the red dripping wax seal on Cuervo's Reserva tequila infringed its federal trademark (Reg. No. 1,370,465) for a wax-like coating that trickles down the bottle neck, as well as related claims for false designation of origin, dilution, and Kentucky common law unfair competition. Following a six-day bench trial, the court determined that the trademark is valid and incontestable, that Cuervo's similar seal created a likelihood of confusion and therefore infringed, but that the use did not dilute the mark. The court granted a permanent injunction barring Cuervo from using the red dripping wax on tequila products sold in the United States but declined to award monetary damages, citing the limited scope of the infringement and other equitable factors under the Lanham Act.

business & regulatory

The case involved high school teacher Robert Baar suing the Jefferson County Board of Education and various school officials over disciplinary reprimands that barred him from communicating with another teacher and attending meetings of a local chemistry teachers' group, which he claimed violated his First Amendment right to freedom of association. After the Sixth Circuit remanded the association claim for further proceedings, the district court considered defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because existing precedent did not clearly establish that the restrictions on Baar's attendance at the meetings would fail the Pickering balancing test under the specific circumstances presented.

free speechcivil rights

In United States v. Shaw, defendant Amber Lanay Brown moved to dismiss the federal superseding indictment charging her and co-defendant Antwone Maurice Shaw with drug trafficking offenses, arguing that federal prosecutors brought the charges in retaliation for her attempt to enforce a state plea agreement and in violation of U.S. Attorney's Manual policies and due process. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and denied the motion. The court held that neither Supreme Court nor Sixth Circuit precedent supports dismissal for outrageous government conduct on these facts, that the alleged misconduct occurred in a separate state prosecution, and that the federal charges themselves did not violate any constitutional rights. The court noted that any potential remedy would involve suppression of evidence rather than dismissal of an otherwise valid indictment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defamation claim by attorney Robert Salyer against the Southern Poverty Law Center for statements in a 2006 Intelligence Report labeling him as part of an extremist group. The court addressed whether the one-year statute of limitations barred the suit filed in 2008, focusing on whether hyperlinks to the article, references in other articles, or mailing an additional copy constituted republication that would restart the limitations period. Applying the single publication rule, the court held that these actions did not amount to republication because they did not involve editing or retransmitting the defamatory material to reach a new audience in a manner that reset the clock. Consequently, the defamation claim was time-barred, and the plaintiff's motion to amend to add a false light invasion of privacy claim was denied as futile since it would also be barred by the same limitations period.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Robert Baar, a high school science teacher, sued the Jefferson County Board of Education and several officials claiming that disciplinary actions, including a formal reprimand and a broad prohibition on attending future meetings of a local chemistry teachers' group, violated his constitutional rights. After the Sixth Circuit remanded the case following its ruling that the meeting ban infringed Baar's First Amendment freedom of association, the district court considered motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims. The court dismissed all claims against individual defendants in their official capacities as duplicative of the suit against the board itself, granted qualified immunity to most defendants for lack of personal involvement in the unconstitutional conduct, but denied it to the two officials directly responsible for the reprimand and ban, and entered injunctive relief barring reinstatement of the meeting prohibition while dismissing the remaining damages claims.

free speechcivil rights

In this case, Ventas sued HCP for tortious interference with contract and prospective business relations arising from HCP's topping bid to acquire Sunrise REIT after Ventas had entered a purchase agreement at $15 per unit following an auction process. HCP had signed a standstill agreement barring post-auction bids, but proceeded anyway, leading to Canadian litigation over whether Sunrise REIT could consider the $18 bid. The court granted summary judgment to HCP on the tortious interference with contract claim, finding that Ventas could not show Sunrise REIT breached the purchase agreement through its handling of the bid or related actions. The reasoning focused on the absence of any breach, as Sunrise REIT's efforts to seek judicial clarification on the bid's status did not violate its duties under the agreement, and other alleged breaches like failing to use best efforts were insufficient to support the claim.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a proposed class action settlement in litigation by residents within a two-mile radius of a chemical plant over alleged emissions-related harms. The court denied approval of the settlement, which offered a $1.1 million claims fund limited to those within one mile, plus monitoring and equipment upgrade commitments, in exchange for broad releases and injunctions barring most future claims for three to ten years. The core reasoning was that the settlement's expansive liability waivers and injunctive relief made it unfair as a whole, particularly given the lack of direct compensation for much of the class and the court's fiduciary obligations to protect absent class members.

environmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved residents near the Oxy Vinyls manufacturing facility in Louisville, Kentucky, who sued the company alleging that emissions from the plant caused noxious odors and fallout that interfered with their use and enjoyment of their properties. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages for nuisance and related claims. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims due to insufficient evidence. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to prove the odors were attributable to Vinyl Chloride from the facility, as the detected concentrations were far below the odor threshold, and provided no reliable expert evidence showing any diminution in property values.

environmentpropertytorts & liability

Residents living near a chemical manufacturing facility operated by DuPont and DPE filed a class action lawsuit alleging nuisance, negligence, trespass, and strict liability based on air emissions that interfered with property use and caused health issues. The parties reached a proposed class settlement providing for a $600,000 payment into a scholarship fund, broad releases of claims, and injunctive provisions limiting future lawsuits by class members and non-parties. After a fairness hearing and review of objections, the court approved the settlement except for the injunctive provisions purporting to bind non-parties, as those provisions only benefited the defendants without corresponding benefit to residents. The court gave DuPont thirty days to accept the settlement as modified or proceed otherwise, applying Rule 23 standards for class certification and settlement fairness.

torts & liabilityenvironmentprocedureproperty

This case stems from a 2007 automobile accident in Kentucky in which plaintiff Mozee was injured by a vehicle driven by defendant Dugger and owned by Leggett & Platt. Mozee sued in state court alleging negligence and various damages but without specifying an amount, as required by Kentucky law; the parties exchanged requests for admissions, one of which confirmed Mozee sought over $75,000. Defendants removed the case to federal court more than thirty days after receiving the complaint, prompting Mozee's motion to remand on timeliness grounds. The court granted the motion and remanded the case, holding that defendants possessed sufficient actual knowledge—from pre-suit demands, the complaint, and related filings—to ascertain that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold at the time they received the initial pleading, triggering the thirty-day removal clock under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved racetrack operators and an ADW company suing horsemen's groups and their representatives for alleged antitrust violations and breach of contract, stemming from the groups' withholding of consent to interstate off-track and advanced deposit wagering to gain leverage in revenue-sharing negotiations over takeout proceeds. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of antitrust standing, immunity under the Interstate Horseracing Act's consent requirements, failure to meet Twombly pleading standards, and no contractual breach. The court reviewed the factual background of pari-mutuel wagering, signal fees, and the IHA's five-consent framework, then addressed interrelated issues of standing, statutory immunity, the sufficiency of allegations for a per se boycott claim, and contract interpretation. It dismissed certain claims, including against individual defendants and for anti-assignment breaches, while noting that no market for consents existed among separate horsemen's groups.

business & regulatoryprocedure