This case involves a dispute between Santa Escolástica, Inc. (SEI) and Dr. Ignacio Pavlovsky over the terms of a buyout agreement for interests in thoroughbred horses following the end of their business partnership. SEI claimed breach of the Garat Agreement, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty, while Pavlovsky counterclaimed for breach of contract. The court granted partial summary judgment to both parties, dismissing SEI's fraud and certain fiduciary duty claims due to lack of evidence of damages or duty breaches regarding periodic accountings, granting SEI judgment on the counterclaim for lack of damages, but denying summary judgment on the core breach of contract claims because material facts remain disputed regarding which horses were covered by the agreement and what amounts are owed.
In United States v. Kearney, the defendant sought to suppress statements he made about his involvement with a firearm during a November 1, 2010 phone call to an ATF agent, arguing that the statements were obtained during a custodial interrogation without prior Miranda warnings. The court denied the motion to suppress. It reasoned that the call was a consensual encounter rather than a custodial interrogation because Kearney initiated the contact while jailed on unrelated charges and remained free to end the conversation at any time, with no additional restrictions imposed on his liberty tied to the questioning itself.
In Whalen v. Stryker Corp., the plaintiff sued the medical device manufacturer after arthroscopic shoulder surgery in 2006 during which a Stryker pain pump was implanted, alleging it caused glenohumeral chondrolysis by delivering toxic anesthetic to shoulder cartilage, a condition she did not discover until the FDA's 2009 bulletin. The complaint asserted claims including negligence, strict products liability, fraud, and punitive damages, while the defendant moved to dismiss primarily on statute-of-limitations grounds, arguing the suit was untimely and lacked sufficient pleading. The court granted the motion in part by dismissing the breach-of-warranty and Kentucky Consumer Protection Act claims but denied dismissal of the negligence, strict liability, fraud, and punitive-damages claims, holding that the allegations plausibly supported tolling via delayed discovery and fraudulent concealment and met the Twombly pleading standard for the remaining counts under Kentucky law.
In this bankruptcy appeal, plaintiff Pamela Matthews sought to discharge her student loan obligations on grounds of undue hardship after her Chapter 7 case was converted from Chapter 11. The bankruptcy court allowed Educational Credit Management Corp. (ECMC) to intervene as assignee of the loans from the guarantor, rejected Matthews' repeated challenges to ECMC's standing, and entered judgment for ECMC after finding that Matthews failed to satisfy the first two prongs of the Brunner undue-hardship test. On appeal to the district court, Matthews raised only standing issues and did not contest the undue-hardship ruling; the court affirmed, holding that ECMC had properly intervened as assignee and that any procedural defects alleged by Matthews were without merit.
The case involved a high school student bringing state law claims against the Paris Board of Education, school superintendent, and principal for negligent hiring and supervision of a teacher accused of sexual harassment, failure to provide a safe environment, and outrageous conduct, all stemming from incidents that preceded the student's suicide attempt in 2009. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing governmental immunity for the board and official-capacity claims and qualified immunity for the individual-capacity claims. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice. It relied on the plaintiff's concessions regarding governmental immunity for the board and official capacities, and on the discretionary nature of hiring and supervision decisions plus lack of evidence for an independent outrage claim to support qualified immunity for the officials in their individual capacities.
This case involves Fifth Third Bank's lawsuit against J. Fred Miller III for default on a $1.4 million promissory note from 2008, which was secured by a security interest in Miller's thoroughbred horses as collateral. Miller conceded liability for the debt but contested the amount owed, arguing that the bank had not sold the horses in a commercially reasonable manner or properly accounted for proceeds and expenses under Kentucky's UCC provisions. The court granted summary judgment to the bank on the issue of Miller's liability, as there was no dispute that he executed the note, received the funds, and failed to pay at maturity. However, it denied summary judgment on the balance due because the bank failed to affirmatively demonstrate that its disposition of the collateral complied with commercial reasonableness standards, despite evidence of declining appraisals and sales. The decision rests on the requirement that a secured party must show its collection and sale methods were commercially reasonable to rely on statutory protections regarding the debt calculation.