District Court, E.D. Kentucky — appointed by George H.W. Bush
United States v. Gayhart
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-10-31
In United States v. Gayhart, the defendant faced charges under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for knowingly selling a red-tailed hawk and taking it with intent to sell without a permit, alleged as felonies under 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 707(b). The defendant moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, claiming it did not properly charge a felony because it lacked an allegation that he knew the bird was a migratory species protected by the Act. The court denied the motion, concluding that the indictment tracked the statutory language where "knowingly" modifies only the acts of taking and selling. The court reasoned that the mens rea requirement does not extend to awareness of the bird's specific identity or protected status under the MBTA.
criminal law
Baker v. Lyon (In Re ClassicStar, LLC)
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-08-11
This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's judgment in an adversary proceeding where the trustee alleged that appellant Neil Baker benefited from a fraudulent transfer by the debtor ClassicStar, LLC, resulting in an $801,558.70 judgment against him. The district court considered whether it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) to hear the appeal from the bankruptcy court's March 14, 2011 Order of Judgment, which resolved the merits but deferred rulings on interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The court lifted an abeyance order and dismissed the appeal as untimely, finding that the notice of appeal filed on May 4, 2011, exceeded the 14-day deadline under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 because the March 14 order was a final judgment on the fraudulent transfer claim. The reasoning centered on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58, which establish that unresolved collateral issues like discretionary fees and interest do not prevent finality of the merits adjudication, citing precedents such as Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. and Saleem v. Toombs.
procedurebusiness & regulatory
Webb v. Jessamine County Fiscal Court
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-08-05 · cited 10×
The case concerned a former detainee's claims that jail officials at the Jessamine County Detention Center were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs when she went into labor and gave birth unassisted in a holdover cell, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, along with related claims of failure to train or supervise, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Kentucky law. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment on these federal and state claims, applying the standard that requires no genuine issue of material fact for judgment as a matter of law. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, reasoning that the plaintiff's experience of fear and suffering during unassisted labor was a cognizable injury under the Eighth Amendment even though the baby was born healthy, while also evaluating qualified immunity, official-capacity claims, and state-law immunities and duties.
civil rightscriminal lawhealthcareprocedure
Moses v. Baker
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-07-21 · cited 6×
The case concerned parents seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under their Allstate auto policy after their adult daughter was killed in a highway accident while driving her own uninsured Mazda 3. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment. It held that the daughter did not qualify as a resident relative because the facts showed she had no intention of resuming residence in her parents' Ohio household. The court also found that the policy's other-owned-vehicle exclusion independently barred coverage because the fatal collision occurred while she was getting out of her separately owned, uninsured car.
torts & liability
LABUY v. Peck
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-05-31 · cited 2×
The case concerns a motion to remand a removed diversity action from federal district court back to Kentucky state court. After the court had previously determined that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 based on the plaintiff's pre-removal settlement demand, the plaintiff moved to remand, citing his inability to prove lost wages and a post-removal stipulation limiting damages below the jurisdictional threshold. The court denied the motion, explaining that the amount in controversy for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is evaluated as of the time of removal and that subsequent events reducing the claimed damages do not divest federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
procedurefederal power
PERSLEY v. Lee
District Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2011-05-17 · cited 2×
In this case, the plaintiff, as executrix of an estate, sued a cardiovascular surgeon in federal court for a declaratory judgment after a breach of contract dispute arising from the defendant's failure to appear at depositions in an underlying Kentucky medical malpractice action. The plaintiff sought a ruling that a Kentucky state court was required to give full faith and credit to a Missouri court's prior determination upholding the validity of service and a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Colorado River abstention doctrine or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court found that neither abstention doctrine applied because the proceedings were not parallel and the state judgment was not final, but determined that the five factors for exercising declaratory judgment jurisdiction weighed against proceeding, as the action would not settle the controversy, would encroach on state court authority, and a better remedy existed via appeal in Kentucky state court. The court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice.
procedurefederal power