District Court, S.D. Indiana — appointed by Ronald Reagan
Estate of Eiteljorg Ex Rel. Eiteljorg v. Eiteljorg
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2011-09-27 · cited 20×
The case involved the Estate of Sonja Eiteljorg suing Harrison Eiteljorg II and Jack M. Eiteljorg for breach of contract arising from a 2001 settlement agreement that resolved disputes over the administration of the Harrison Eiteljorg Revocable Trust and related estate matters, including provisions for mutual releases and potential payments triggered by litigation. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and 12(b)(7) for failure to join a necessary party. The court denied dismissal on jurisdiction grounds, holding that diversity jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2) based on the decedent's citizenship, and denied dismissal on joinder grounds after applying Rule 19(b) factors, noting the trust's assets had already been distributed. However, the court granted dismissal without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the complaint deficient, and allowed the Estate 45 days to amend.
procedurepropertyfamily law
Hughes v. Chattem, Inc.
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2011-08-31 · cited 14×
In Hughes v. Chattem, Inc., plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that the defendant's Dexatrim weight-loss supplement contained undisclosed hexavalent chromium, in violation of marketing claims implying safety, and asserted claims under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief after purchasing the product. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The reasoning centered on plaintiffs' failure to allege any actual injury or harm from product use, lack of plausible facts showing deception in the label or website materials, absence of standing due to no concrete injury, and the unavailability of unjust enrichment where consumers received the benefit of their bargain in ordinary transactions.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Tindell v. EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH SCHOOL CORP.
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2011-07-29 · cited 1×
The case involved a student with autism spectrum disorder and related disabilities, along with his parents, who sued the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation alleging that the school failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through inadequate evaluations, individualized education programs (IEPs), and placements including homebound instruction. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, entering judgment for the school. The core reasoning was that the school's psychological evaluations, case conference committee meetings, IEPs, and continuum of services complied with IDEA requirements and were reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit, even as the student's needs evolved over time.
civil rights
Buquer v. City of Indianapolis
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2011-06-24 · cited 7×
This case involved a challenge by plaintiffs to two provisions of Indiana's Senate Enrolled Act 590, which was set to take effect in 2011. Section 19 authorized state and local law enforcement to make warrantless arrests based on federal immigration removal orders, detainers, or probable cause of aggravated felonies, while Section 18 created a state infraction for knowingly offering or accepting consular identification cards as valid ID. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of both sections pending a full ruling on their constitutionality. The core reasoning was that the provisions attempted to regulate immigration, an area of exclusive federal authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that they conflicted with federal preemption principles as well as Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures.
immigrationcriminal lawfederal power
McComas v. Brickley
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2011-05-13
This case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit brought by Shannon McComas, a former Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer, against Detective Edward Brickley for false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment, stemming from McComas's arrest in connection with a fatal shooting at Durty Nelly's bar on January 1, 2008, after which charges against him were dropped. The court addressed Defendant Brickley's motion for summary judgment, which argued that probable cause existed for the arrest based on witness statements and other evidence available to the detective. The court denied the motion, holding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether probable cause existed when the facts known to Detective Brickley at the time of the arrest—including statements from witnesses like Norman Broaden and Ramierez Hayes—were viewed in the light most favorable to McComas. The decision focused on the specific information the detective possessed and rejected additional arguments raised only in reply briefs as untimely or unsupported.
criminal lawcivil rights
Worley v. Waddell
District Court, S.D. Indiana · 2011-05-03
The case involves Plaintiff Joseph Worley suing the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles Commissioner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief after repeated denials of a photo ID or driver's license. Worley alleges that a name mismatch between his birth certificate and social security records has created an impasse preventing him from obtaining identification needed to vote, marry, legally change his name, or adopt a child, in violation of his substantive and procedural due process rights. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that the factual allegations sufficiently state plausible claims for relief.
civil rightsprocedureelections