Carlos Murguia

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involves plaintiff Terry Muntzert's appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income based on multiple impairments including degenerative joint disease, obesity, depression, borderline intellectual functioning, and diabetes. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to reverse the ALJ's decision, which had determined that the plaintiff's IQ scores were invalid and that his condition did not meet or equal Listing 12.05(C) for mental retardation while also finding he could perform past work or a range of light unskilled work. The court found that the ALJ erred in assessing the validity of the IQ scores without proper consideration of supporting evidence, failed to adequately address whether deficits in adaptive functioning manifested before age 22, and did not obtain relevant historical treatment records from the 1980s that could inform the evaluation. As a result, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and remanded for further proceedings including obtaining additional records and reevaluation by a consultative examiner.

federal powerhealthcare

In this trademark dispute, plaintiff Hodgdon Powder Co. sued defendant Alliant Techsystems for infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition over defendant's marketing of CLAY DOT gunpowder, which allegedly confused consumers with plaintiff's CLAYS product; defendant counterclaimed to cancel plaintiff's registrations. The court addressed defendant's motion to exclude a survey called the "Name Game Survey" (conducted at plaintiff's promotional booth during a 2006 shooting event) and to strike the related expert report of Dr. Raj Arora, which relied on the survey to conclude that consumers were confused about the products' origins. The court granted the motion, holding the survey inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert because it failed to follow generally accepted survey principles: the participant universe was underinclusive and non-representative, the question was unclear and imprecise, and the process lacked objectivity due to plaintiff's employees administering it amid promotional materials and incentives. As a result, the expert opinions based on the survey were also excluded as unreliable and irrelevant.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a trademark dispute between competing suppliers of shotgun reloading gunpowder, Hodgdon Powder Co. and Alliant Techsystems, over Hodgdon's registered marks including CLAYS and Alliant's use of CLAY DOT for powders aimed at clay target shooters. Hodgdon sued for trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, while Alliant counterclaimed to cancel the registrations on grounds including genericness, functionality, abandonment, and fraud. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court determined that the CLAYS mark is incontestable under federal law, which precludes the defense of lack of distinctiveness for the trademark claims but permits equitable defenses such as unclean hands and estoppel, and that trade dress claims are not incontestable; it granted both motions in part and denied them in part.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Mount St. Scholastica, a monastic community, sued the City of Atchison after the city denied its application for a demolition permit for an unused Administration Building under the Kansas Historic Preservation Act, which requires review when a structure is near listed historic properties. The plaintiff alleged that the denial violated its state and federal constitutional rights, including under the First and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment in part, holding that the city's actions violated the plaintiff's First Amendment rights. The decision rested on the determination that the preservation statute creates a system of individualized exemptions, triggering strict scrutiny that the city's findings of feasible alternatives did not satisfy in light of the plaintiff's religious obligations regarding its property.

religious libertycivil rightsproperty

This case is a pro se appeal challenging the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits. The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to reverse and remand the decision, addressing objections from both the plaintiff and the defendant. The court found the plaintiff's new evidence was neither new nor material and that he failed to show good cause for its late submission, while determining that some of the ALJ's findings on impairments and credibility lacked substantial evidence support but others were properly sustained. The court overruled all objections and adopted the recommendation to reverse the denial of benefits and remand the case for further proceedings pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

federal powerprocedure

Angela Stanley sued ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Company for negligence after she was injured by an empty fuel loading arm while loading fuel at the company's Kansas terminal in 2003. She claimed the company failed to warn her about the arm's condition and failed to train her on its use. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court denied relief on the failure-to-warn claim because material facts were disputed as to whether the empty arm was a dangerous latent condition on the premises. The court granted summary judgment on the failure-to-train claim, finding no Kansas precedent imposing a duty to train in the context of a business invitee relationship rather than an employment relationship.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act brought by plaintiff Robert J. Pound (and later joined by Pro Products, Inc.) against Airosol Company, Inc., alleging that Airosol's manufacture, sale, and distribution of Black Knight—an aerosol pesticide containing banned Class II HCFC substances—violated federal emissions standards after January 1, 1994. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment finding a violation as a matter of law, as Airosol lacked a timely and properly filed reformulation exemption. Following a bench trial on remedies, the court declined to impose any monetary penalty, reasoning that the suit appeared driven by the plaintiff's economic interest in competing products rather than environmental concerns and that a penalty would not substantially advance the Act's purposes; it also denied requests for injunctive relief and attorney fees and costs under the Act's fee-shifting provision.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued Wall Street Underground, Inc. and Nicholas Guarino for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and related regulations, alleging improper marketing and operation of commodity trading recommendation services without required registration, along with related fraudulent conduct. After the defendants failed to timely respond to the complaint despite proper service and multiple court opportunities to defend, the court entered defaults and granted the Commission's motion for default judgment. The court found personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, took the well-pleaded allegations as true, and imposed a permanent injunction barring the defendants from commodity-related activities, joint-and-several restitution of over $2.3 million to harmed customers, and a civil monetary penalty exceeding $7.1 million. The decision rested on the defendants' procedural defaults, the statutory authority of the CFTC to seek such relief, and the facts established by the complaint.

business & regulatory

This case was a qui tam action brought by a doctor and his professional association against a Kansas hospital under the False Claims Act, alleging that the hospital submitted false annual Medicare cost reports by certifying compliance with healthcare regulations while engaging in substandard care practices, patient dumping, inadequate staffing, and kickbacks; the suit also included a retaliation claim and state-law claims over the doctor's removal from the medical staff. The district court granted in part and denied in part the hospital's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment, dismissing the main FCA counts (One through Three) along with Counts Five and Six but granting leave to amend the latter two, while denying the separate partial summary judgment motion as moot. The core reasoning was that the relator's allegations failed to state viable FCA claims because the cost-report certifications did not qualify as false claims under the statute's requirements, the state-law claims were timely due to relation-back under Rule 15(c), and certain issues were better addressed after amendment or were moot.

healthcarecriminal lawprocedure

In this case, Medical Supply Chain, Inc. sued multiple defendants including Neoforma, Inc., U.S. Bancorp, Piper Jaffray, and healthcare organizations, alleging antitrust violations under the Sherman Act, RICO claims, fraud, tortious interference, and other counts stemming from alleged restraints in the medical supply market and related banking activities. The case had been transferred from the Western District of Missouri and followed two prior similar lawsuits by the same plaintiff that had been dismissed. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the claims were barred by claim preclusion from the earlier actions, failed to meet pleading standards under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6), and that many allegations were frivolous. It also imposed sanctions jointly on the plaintiff and its disbarred former counsel for unreasonable filings and denied the plaintiff's various procedural motions as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

This case involved plaintiffs who prevailed at a jury trial against defendants Art Korn and Stephen Summers on claims including federal odometer law violations, fraud, conspiracy, and breaches of implied warranties, resulting in awards of actual and punitive damages. Defendant Summers moved to alter the judgment to reduce his actual damages liability by amounts paid by other defendants, arguing joint and several liability and waiver of defenses, while plaintiffs moved to treble the actual damages under 49 U.S.C. § 32710, award attorney fees, and add prejudgment interest. The court denied Summers' motion, finding he had waived the affirmative defense of setoff or satisfaction by not raising it timely and that federal odometer law supports separate and individual liability rather than credits from co-defendants. The court granted plaintiffs' motion in full, trebling the damages, awarding prejudgment interest, and granting attorney fees of $134,976.79 after minor reductions for calculation errors, based on the jury's findings of liability and the statutory provisions allowing such remedies.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Sutherland v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., plaintiff Damon Sutherland sued his former employer alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for failing to properly designate certain absences as FMLA-qualified leave in 2002 and for proposing a settlement that waived FMLA rights, along with a state-law claim of retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim after a workplace injury. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment. It allowed the FMLA claims to proceed to trial due to factual disputes over leave eligibility, estoppel from prior notifications, and whether absences were improperly considered in discipline decisions. Summary judgment was granted on the retaliation claim because temporal proximity alone did not establish causation between the workers' compensation filing and termination, and on the settlement-waiver claim. The decision rested on review of attendance records, the company's positive discipline and Loss of Value procedures, and applicable legal standards for FMLA eligibility and retaliatory intent.

labor & employment

In Cole v. American Family Mutual Insurance, plaintiff Karen Cole sued her ex-husband Gary Cole, coworker Leroy Adler, and employer American Family Mutual Insurance Company for obtaining her credit reports without permission or court order during their divorce, in alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing a permissible purpose existed due to a legitimate business need in the divorce proceedings or that the reports effectively concerned the husband because of the couple's joint finances. The court denied all three motions for summary judgment, holding that divorce-related asset tracking does not qualify as a "business transaction" under the FCRA, the reports were not about the husband, and material factual disputes remained on whether the employer maintained reasonable compliance procedures and whether the violations were willful.

business & regulatoryfamily lawprocedure

This case involves an employment dispute where plaintiff Eunice Campbell, a patient care technician at Gambro Healthcare's Atchison clinic, sued her employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, asserting claims for FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, and race discrimination. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in full. The court concluded there was no evidence that Gambro interfered with Campbell's FMLA rights or retaliated against her for taking leave, as reductions in her hours and her later termination were attributable to a declining patient census at the clinic rather than her protected activity; the court similarly found no evidence of racial animus supporting the § 1981 claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights