Karl Spillman Forester

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

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.

procedure

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.

torts & liability

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Kentucky corporation Santa Escolástica, Inc. and Argentine citizen Ignacio Pavlovsky over claims arising from a horse brokering and breeding partnership that began around 1995. Pavlovsky moved to dismiss the diversity action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after an evidentiary hearing. It held that personal service of process on Pavlovsky while he was voluntarily attending horse sales in Fayette County, Kentucky, established jurisdiction under Burnham v. Superior Court, as the service complied with federal and state rules. Alternatively, the court found that the defendant's Kentucky business activities satisfied the state's long-arm statute and constitutional minimum contacts requirements.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves the Limbrights' efforts to collect on prior Kentucky and Michigan judgments against the Hofmeisters through supplementary proceedings alleging fraudulent transfers of assets to the Hofmeister children's trusts and that those trusts are alter egos of the Hofmeisters or family trusts. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or require restatement of claims, arguing that the Michigan judgment is not recognized in Kentucky, that Michigan statutes do not apply to the transfers, that fraud was not pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b), and that a receiver cannot be appointed for assets of non-parties. The court denied the motion to dismiss in most respects, finding the claims sufficiently stated and applicable law appropriate, but granted it in part by dismissing without prejudice any claims seeking relief as to assets owned by the Hofmeister children, who had been dismissed from the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

procedureproperty

In Mosier v. Kentucky, a deaf attorney licensed in Kentucky sued the Commonwealth, its Administrative Office of the Courts, and related officials under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. She alleged that the defendants' policy of refusing to provide sign language interpreters for her court appearances as an attorney prevented her from fully participating in proceedings and representing clients, seeking injunctive relief and damages. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment. It ruled that the plaintiff had standing, that her claims were timely and not barred by sovereign immunity, and that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act apply to attorneys with disabilities seeking court access. However, it found that factual disputes remained over whether the defendants' services were readily accessible and whether the requested accommodations were reasonable, requiring resolution at trial.

civil rights

The case involved plaintiff Freddy S. Campbell, an inmate, filing claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against Credit Bureau Systems, Inc. and GLA Collection Company, Inc., alleging improper debt collection practices related to medical bills. The court considered renewed motions for summary judgment after allowing discovery on whether verification notices were properly mailed. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding they had complied with FDCPA requirements by sending validation notices that were not returned as undeliverable and providing debt verifications upon request. The reasoning was that once the 30-day period passed without dispute and notices were sent correctly, no violations occurred, and defendants took no further collection actions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over guaranty agreements tied to limited partnership deals for developing six low-income senior housing projects in Kentucky, where investor limited partners provided capital in exchange for tax credits and the general partners and guarantors (McMaster and Murphy) were responsible for construction, funding deficits, and loan payments. After construction costs rose and modifications were denied, the guarantors stopped funding, leading to loan defaults and foreclosure actions by Bank of America. Plaintiffs sued the guarantors to enforce payment and performance obligations under the agreements and guaranties, while Murphy filed counterclaims for breach of contract, fiduciary duties, good faith, and negligence. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability, finding the guarantors breached their obligations and that no evidence supported the counterclaims or defenses, denied the defendants' cross-motions, and deferred the damages determination to a later opinion.

business & regulatorytaxes

The case involves Teri Mosier, a deaf attorney licensed in Kentucky, who sued the Commonwealth, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and related officials for refusing to provide sign language interpreters in court proceedings, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of intentional discrimination, constitutional barriers to using state funds for interpreters, and sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the KCRA claims because Kentucky has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for such suits in federal court, while allowing the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims to proceed on the basis that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged denial of meaningful access to court services and that factual issues regarding reasonable accommodations could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

In this case, environmental nonprofits Heartwood, Inc. and Kentucky Heartwood, Inc. sued the U.S. Forest Service (and its regional forester) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the agency's approval of the 2003 Ice Storm Recovery Project in Kentucky's Daniel Boone National Forest and the forest's revised land-management plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the approvals violated NEPA by failing to prepare an adequate EIS or EA, violated NFMA by not satisfying forest-plan requirements, and violated the Endangered Species Act, with all claims reviewable under the APA's arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The court described the two-tier NFMA planning process (programmatic forest plans and site-specific projects), NEPA's mandates for analyzing alternatives and environmental consequences, and the procedural posture of pending motions for judgment on the administrative record and leave to file an amended complaint.

environmentprocedurefederal power

This case involves plaintiff Michael Marcum's claims against Pikeville Medical Center and other defendants arising from a disputed $358 medical debt that was referred for collection and reported on his credit file. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act by the collection agency and credit bureaus, plus state-law claims of negligence, invasion of privacy, and defamation against Pikeville Medical as the furnisher of information. Pikeville Medical moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing lack of fair notice on some counts, truth of the statements, statute of limitations, and preemption under the FCRA. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the amended complaint adequately pled the state-law tort claims and an FCRA claim against Pikeville, and that those tort claims were not preempted by 15 U.S.C. § 1681t(b)(1)(F) under the statutory approach to harmonizing the FCRA preemption provisions. The court granted Pikeville an extension of time to answer.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a widow's claim for accidental death benefits under an ERISA policy issued by Hartford after her husband died from complications during a coronary catheterization procedure involving a Rotablator device. Hartford denied the claim, concluding that the death resulted from coronary artery disease or medical treatment of that disease, which were excluded from coverage under the policy's definition of "injury." The court reviewed the denial under an arbitrary and capricious standard and examined precedents holding that medical malpractice or complications from surgical treatment do not qualify as accidents for purposes of such policies. It determined that Hartford's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with the policy language and applicable case law, even considering arguments about potential device malfunction or negligence. The court therefore denied the motion to reverse the administrative decision and upheld the denial of benefits.

healthcarebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns an insurance coverage dispute in which Cincinnati Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that its commercial umbrella liability policies did not cover claims by homeowners for water intrusion damage and related issues in houses built by Crossmann Communities (later Beazer Homes) between 1998 and 2002. The homeowners attributed the problems to faulty workmanship by the general contractor and subcontractors, though no lawsuits had been filed at the time of the action. Beazer counterclaimed seeking coverage for resulting damage to other components of the homes. Applying Indiana law, the court analyzed whether the claims alleged an "occurrence" or "property damage" under the policies and considered a fungus exclusion endorsement. It concluded that construction defects do not qualify as accidents or occurrences, and that damage to the insured's own work product is not covered property damage, while addressing arguments regarding collateral estoppel and policy interpretations.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

The case is a discovery dispute within multidistrict litigation stemming from the 2006 Comair air crash at Lexington, Kentucky, in which plaintiffs sought ASAP safety reports from Comair via a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. Comair moved for a protective order, asserting that the reports were protected by statute, FAA regulations, a common-law privilege, or the self-critical analysis privilege. The magistrate judge denied the motion, finding no applicable privilege and ordering production along with a corporate witness, and the district court reviewed the order under the clearly erroneous standard, adopted it in full, and rejected Comair's objections. The court reasoned that privileges are not lightly created, that Congress and the FAA had not provided the requested protection despite knowing how the regulations operate, and that policy arguments about potential harm to aviation safety programs belong before the FAA or Congress rather than the judiciary.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves multiple lawsuits arising from the 2006 Comair plane crash in Lexington, Kentucky, in which plaintiffs sought various categories of damages against Comair and Bombardier. The defendants moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss claims for loss of spousal consortium, loss of consortium involving adult children, pre-impact terror, and hedonic or loss-of-enjoyment-of-life damages, arguing these were not recognized under Kentucky law. The court granted dismissal of the consortium claims involving spouses and adult children, as well as the pre-impact terror claims, relying on precedents such as Clark v. Hauck and recent Kentucky Supreme Court decisions that had not expanded recovery in these areas. It denied dismissal of the hedonic and loss-of-enjoyment damages, finding they could proceed as part of a survival action. The rulings followed the principle that federal courts should not predict expansions of state tort law absent clear signals from the state's highest court.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by the ACLU to Rowan County's posting of the Ten Commandments in a county fiscal courtroom, initially as a standalone plaque and later as part of a larger 'Foundations of American Law and Government' display that included other historical documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the court analyzed whether the revised display satisfied Establishment Clause requirements under precedents like McCreary County v. ACLU, focusing on the county's stated secular purpose to educate citizens about legal traditions, the uniform presentation of all documents with explanatory statements, and the limited context of the courtroom setting. The court also addressed standing and distinguished the facts from cases where displays were found unconstitutional due to a predominant religious purpose. It granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the display passed constitutional muster.

religious libertycivil rights

The case concerned a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and individual plaintiffs against Garrard County, Kentucky, challenging the constitutionality of a display featuring the Ten Commandments in the county courthouse under the Establishment Clause. After an initial 1999 display drew objections, the county replaced it with a revised "Foundations Display" containing the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents of equal size, such as the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and Mayflower Compact. The court examined the history and context of both displays, including county actions, public statements, and the shift in presentation, to assess whether the county had a secular purpose. It granted summary judgment to the county, concluding that the revised display recognized American legal traditions without endorsing religion.

religious libertycivil rights