District Court, D. Kansas — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Falley v. Friends University
District Court, D. Kansas · 2011-04-14 · cited 41×
The case involves an employment discrimination claim by a plaintiff against Friends University, alleging termination based on disability or perceived disability, along with a breach of contract claim related to sick leave and vacation use. After the defendant filed its answer with several affirmative defenses stated in general terms without factual detail, the plaintiff moved to strike those defenses, arguing they failed to meet the plausibility pleading standards established in Twombly and Iqbal. The court denied the motion, holding that the heightened pleading requirements of Twombly and Iqbal apply only to complaints and not to affirmative defenses in answers. The core reasoning centered on the text of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(b) and 8(c), the short time frame defendants have to answer (21 days), the risk of waiver for omitted defenses, the disfavored nature of motions to strike, and the potential for increased litigation delays if the stricter standard were extended.
labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure
Wenner v. Bank of America, NA
District Court, D. Kansas · 2009-06-12 · cited 8×
In Wenner v. Bank of America, plaintiffs alleged that after closing their checking account with automatic mortgage payments, the bank made unauthorized transfers that appeared as charges on their credit card, failed to investigate or remove the disputed charges despite repeated letters and documentation, reported negative information to credit agencies without noting the dispute, and pursued collections. The court considered plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaint to add a Kansas Consumer Protection Act claim and to join the bank's credit card division as a defendant, along with the bank's motion to dismiss the claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and common-law defamation. The court granted both amendment motions, finding the proposed second amended complaint alleged facts sufficient to support the elements of the claims, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss by dismissing the defamation claim arising from publications to credit reporting agencies while denying dismissal of the remaining claims and the request to strike the jury demand.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Durbin v. Yellow Transportation
District Court, D. Kansas · 2009-02-11
This case involves a personal injury lawsuit originally filed in Kansas state court by a Missouri resident against several corporate defendants incorporated in Delaware or Indiana but with principal places of business in Kansas. The defendants removed the action to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, and the parties jointly sought a ruling on whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction despite the forum defendant rule in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), which generally bars removal when any defendant is a citizen of the state where the suit was brought. The court determined that complete diversity existed and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, satisfying original jurisdiction requirements. It further held that the forum defendant rule constitutes a procedural defect rather than a jurisdictional bar, making it waivable, as supported by precedents from multiple circuits and prior Tenth Circuit decisions treating similar removal issues as procedural. Because no remand motion was filed and the plaintiff consented to the removal, the court concluded that jurisdiction was proper and granted the joint motion.
procedure
Nealey v. WATER DIST. NO. 1 OF JOHNSON COUNTY
District Court, D. Kansas · 2008-04-29 · cited 1×
Donna J. Nealey, a former employee of Water District No. 1 of Johnson County, sued her employer alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Family Medical Leave Act, including discrimination, interference with leave rights, and retaliation. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The court found that Nealey failed to establish a prima facie case for several claims due to insufficient evidence of satisfactory job performance or causal connections between protected activities and adverse actions, and that she did not demonstrate the employer's stated reason for termination—repeated sleeping at work—was pretextual.
labor & employmentcivil rights
Gates Ex Rel. Triumph Mortgage, Inc. v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2007-12-10 · cited 1×
The case involved a property owner suing Sprint Spectrum for trespass and injunctive relief after the company installed wireless telecommunications equipment on an electrical easement over land in Texas. The plaintiff acquired the property from the FDIC after the 1998 installation and alleged unauthorized use without compensation, though the equipment caused no physical damage or change in market value. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing because Texas law treats the injury as permanent, meaning it occurred before his ownership and any claim belonged to the prior owner without an assignment. The injunctive relief request was dismissed as derivative of the failed trespass claim rather than an independent cause of action.
propertytorts & liabilityprocedure
Lipari v. US BANCORP NA
District Court, D. Kansas · 2007-11-16 · cited 1×
The case involves plaintiff Samuel K. Lipari suing U.S. Bancorp NA and U.S. Bank NA on five Missouri state-law claims—breach of contract, fraud, trade secret misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and prima facie tort—that he alleges were assigned to him by a dissolved corporation, Medical Supply Chain, Inc. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court first held that plaintiff had standing because he alleged a valid assignment of the corporation's claims, even though shareholders generally lack standing to sue for corporate injuries and dissolution does not automatically transfer claims. The court then addressed res judicata, ruling that the state-law claims were not barred by two prior federal lawsuits because those claims had been dismissed without prejudice, but it ordered additional briefing to determine which specific claims had been raised before and which were new. The court granted the motion in part, denied it in part, and denied it without prejudice in part pending that clarification.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability