This case involves AT&T Kentucky challenging orders from the Kentucky Public Service Commission that required the company, as an incumbent local exchange carrier, to continue providing certain network elements to competitive carriers like SouthEast at regulated rates after the FCC eliminated unbundling obligations under Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Commission had relied on Section 271 to set rates just above the prior TELRIC levels for these delisted elements. The court granted in part and denied in part AT&T Kentucky's request for declaratory and injunctive relief, finding that state commissions lack authority to enforce or set rates under Section 271, which is reserved for the FCC, and remanded the matter to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with that determination.
The case involved Gladys Daily, a former Vice President and Branch Manager at American Founders Bank who was terminated in 2007 after nearly two years of employment, and who sued alleging age discrimination, sex discrimination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment in part by dismissing the defamation and emotional distress claims with prejudice, holding that the statutory discrimination claims preempted those tort claims. It denied summary judgment on the discrimination claims, however, after determining that Daily had satisfied administrative filing requirements for the sex discrimination claim, established a prima facie case of age discrimination, and produced evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the bank's proffered reason for termination—falsifying documents in violation of bank policy—was pretextual.
This case involved defendant Juan Francisco Lopez, who was arrested for speeding in Kentucky; a search of his vehicle incident to arrest uncovered crack cocaine, scales, and a firearm, leading to federal charges for drug trafficking and carrying a firearm during a drug crime. Lopez entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court denied his motion to suppress the evidence under then-controlling precedent from New York v. Belton. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant, which narrowed the scope of such searches, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case. The district court determined that the remand was general in scope, allowing the government to argue that the evidence should be admitted under the Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and that the government had not waived this argument by not raising it earlier. The court therefore scheduled further proceedings on the suppression issue.
This case arose from a dispute among members of Vizterra, a Kentucky LLC formed to operate seasonal Halloween and Christmas stores, after the business dissolved in late 2007; the Kentucky plaintiffs alleged breach of the operating agreement by the Georgia-based defendants and sought an accounting, declaratory judgment, and damages, while parallel proceedings involving promissory notes were already underway in Georgia state court. The federal district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss on preclusion grounds and their request to compel arbitration. It applied Colorado River abstention principles, concluding that the claims for an accounting and declaratory judgment implicated strong Kentucky state policy interests in LLC dissolution matters best handled by state courts, and therefore remanded those claims to Owen Circuit Court while staying the remaining breach-of-contract claims pending state-court resolution. The decision rested on the absence of a final judgment in the Georgia action and the need to avoid piecemeal adjudication of issues governed by Kentucky law.
The case concerned a challenge by American Express to a Kentucky statute, K.R.S. § 393.060(2), that shortened the presumptive abandonment period for uncashed traveler's checks from fifteen years to seven years, requiring the company to remit the funds to the state sooner. American Express argued that the law violated the Due Process, Takings, and Contract Clauses by interfering with its property and contractual interests in the investment proceeds from those funds. The court granted summary judgment to American Express on its substantive due process claim, finding the statute arbitrary and capricious because it lacked a rational relationship to any legitimate government objective and deprived the company of a protected property interest without due process. The court denied the Treasurer's cross-motion for summary judgment and did not reach the other constitutional claims.
This case involves a dispute between BellSouth Telecommunications (AT&T Kentucky) and SouthEast Telephone over the proper pricing for network switching services under an interconnection agreement, following the FCC's elimination of certain unbundling requirements. AT&T Kentucky sought payment at the resale rates specified in the agreement, while SouthEast and the Kentucky Public Service Commission argued that § 271 of the Telecommunications Act allowed for different pricing. The court ruled in favor of AT&T Kentucky, directing the Commission to calculate the amount owed based on the interconnection agreement's resale rates, including any applicable charges. The reasoning centered on the fact that the parties had not negotiated a § 271 agreement, SouthEast had ordered services under the resale provision, and other carriers had successfully renegotiated agreements after the FCC's order.
