William Odis Bertelsman

This case involved a motion by plaintiff's counsel, Eric Deters, to vacate a prior order imposing sanctions on him for filing an affidavit in a lawsuit against prosecutors. The court denied the motion, upholding sanctions in the amount of $12,765.45 under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying proceedings. The core reasoning was that sanctions under § 1927 are independent from Rule 11's safe-harbor procedures, counsel had not made any nonfrivolous argument for modifying existing law on prosecutorial immunity, and the improper affidavit extended the litigation by requiring responses from the court and opposing parties.

procedurecivil rights

The case involves plaintiff Sarah Jones, a Kentucky resident, teacher, and cheerleader, suing Dirty World, LLC, an Arizona-based operator of the website thedirty.com, along with related defendants, for defamation, libel per se, false light publicity, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on user-submitted posts and the site owner's comments alleging her sexual misconduct and other personal matters. The court addresses the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction following an evidentiary hearing and default judgment against one entity. Applying Sixth Circuit precedent from CompuServe v. Patterson, the court examines whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of Kentucky by operating an interactive website that caused harm there, whether the claims arise from those activities, and whether exercising jurisdiction would be reasonable given the regional impact and accessibility of the site.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involved a former teacher who was charged with first-degree sexual abuse based on a student's allegations of voluntary sexual relations, arrested pursuant to a warrant, tried in state court, and acquitted by a jury. She then filed a federal civil rights action against the prosecutor, alleging improper investigation and prosecution despite inconsistencies in the evidence and the student's initial denials. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the prosecutor was protected by absolute immunity for actions in the judicial phase of the prosecution, such as seeking an indictment, and by qualified immunity for investigative steps. The core reasoning was that probable cause existed from the student's consistent statements, matching descriptions of the plaintiff's apartment and tattoos, and admissions of sexually toned communications, and that an acquittal after proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not retroactively eliminate the lower probable-cause threshold required to initiate prosecution.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case is a legal malpractice suit brought by Corporex Companies and related entities against the law firm Proskauer Rose after the IRS disallowed tax deductions from a 2001 tax shelter investment for which Proskauer had issued an opinion letter stating there was a greater than 50% likelihood the treatment would be upheld. The IRS assessed an approximately $9 million tax deficiency, leading Corporex to settle the underlying tax dispute in 2008 before suing Proskauer in 2009. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), focusing on personal jurisdiction and whether the claim was barred by Kentucky's statute of limitations for legal malpractice. The core reasoning examined when the plaintiffs' injury became fixed and non-speculative under state precedent, the inapplicability of the continuous representation rule, and the date the limitations period began to run following the IRS adjustment and settlement.

business & regulatorytaxesproceduretorts & liability

This case involved two women who were detained at the Kenton County Detention Center and were sexually assaulted by Deputy Jailer Michael Stokes; they brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the detention center, county, jailer, and chief deputy, alleging violations of their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on deliberate indifference to the risk of harm. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the federal claims and dismissed them with prejudice, while declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims, which were dismissed without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs could not establish deliberate indifference because the defendants lacked actual knowledge of a substantial risk posed by Stokes, their background checks and policies were adequate, and isolated prior incidents did not put them on notice. The court treated the official-capacity claims as claims against the county and applied the same standards to pretrial and convicted detainees.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Summe, a former chief deputy county clerk, who sued defendant Eldridge (the newly elected Kenton County Clerk) in his individual and official capacities for terminating her employment allegedly due to her Democratic candidacy against him, and sued Kenton County for releasing documents from her prior employment at the animal shelter. The court granted summary judgment to both defendants. It held that the First Amendment political patronage claim failed because political affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the confidential and policymaking role of chief deputy clerk. The court further found no constitutional violation from the records release, as the documents were performance-related rather than medical and concerned a matter of legitimate public interest regarding a candidate's qualifications.

electionscivil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a middle school student with bipolar disorder and ADHD who, after being given her remaining Adderall pills by the school nurse on the last day of classes, shared one with a classmate at the urging of the other student; the school then suspended her for one day, referred the matter to juvenile authorities resulting in a diversion agreement, and the parents sued the school board and officials alleging violations of §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the IDEA, and various constitutional and state-law claims arising from the handling of the medication and the disciplinary process. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion. It dismissed multiple federal counts with prejudice under the Heck v. Humphrey doctrine, dismissed the IDEA count for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (noting that the parents' decision to home-school the student did not excuse exhaustion), voluntarily dismissed other counts, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involves a proposed class action by shareholders, including labor pension funds, against Omnicare, Inc. and its officers, alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 11 of the federal securities laws. Plaintiffs claimed that Omnicare made false or misleading statements regarding its compliance with laws on unused drugs, GAAP-compliant financial reporting, timely disclosure of a contract dispute with UnitedHealthGroup, and its Medicare Part D transition, which allegedly inflated the stock price until corrective disclosures caused losses. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, along with related procedural motions to add plaintiffs and extend the class period, applying the pleading standards for material misrepresentations, scienter, and loss causation under Rule 10b-5. The opinion analyzed whether specific categories of statements met the requirements for actionable fraud claims and considered issues like standing and corrective disclosures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved defendant Mark Doane, who was indicted for receiving child pornography images found on his computer after it was sent for repair. Doane moved to compel production of the hard drive and forensic report so his expert could examine them outside a government facility, arguing that the Adam Walsh Act's restrictions did not apply retroactively to his pre-enactment conduct and that they unconstitutionally limited his due process and fair trial rights. The government responded that the Act governed ongoing discovery and that it had offered ample opportunity for inspection at its facility. The court denied the motions, holding that the Act applied to this procedural discovery matter and that, on the facts presented, the defendant's planned inspection at the Indianapolis government facility constituted the required ample opportunity under the statute.

criminal lawprocedure

This wrongful death case arose from a 2002 interstate truck collision in Kentucky in which driver Kenneth Chandler lost control after choking on coffee, crossed the median, and struck a minivan, killing three passengers including infant Evan Embry and injuring others. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment on negligence liability, rejecting the blackout defense, after which a jury awarded substantial compensatory damages for wrongful death, loss of consortium, and related claims against Chandler, Geo Transportation, and related entities. In the present opinion, the court rules on post-trial motions for new trial, remittitur, and judgment as a matter of law, as well as summary judgment motions on punitive damages under Kentucky law. The court applies federal procedural standards alongside Kentucky substantive law to evaluate whether the evidence supports the jury's awards or additional punitive relief, ultimately addressing the availability of punitives based on the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard for gross negligence or recklessness.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a libel suit brought by ex-husband Chris-to Lassiter against his ex-wife Sharlene Lassiter over statements in her self-published book alleging that he had physically assaulted her twice during their marriage and committed adultery. The court found that the defendant proved the truth of the physical assault claims by a preponderance of the evidence based on her detailed testimony, which the plaintiff only generally denied. It ruled the adultery claims non-actionable as statements of opinion under Kentucky defamation law and held that injunctive relief was unavailable because falsity had not been shown by clear and convincing evidence. The case arose from a contentious divorce and involved diversity jurisdiction in federal court.

torts & liabilityfamily law

This case involves claims by Kentucky-based United Radio (BlueStar) against former employee Ralph Wagner and his new employer Ingram Micro for breach of an employment contract containing non-compete and non-disclosure provisions, along with related claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and tortious interference. The court addressed motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Wagner (and alternatively to transfer venue to California), after finding subject matter jurisdiction proper. The court held that specific personal jurisdiction existed over Wagner in Kentucky, denying both dismissal and transfer. The core reasoning applied the Sixth Circuit's three-part test for specific jurisdiction, finding that Wagner purposefully availed himself of Kentucky through his employment contract's partial performance there, frequent contacts with the Kentucky home office, signing of contracts in the state, and the contract's Kentucky choice-of-law clause, that the claims arose from those contacts, and that jurisdiction was reasonable given the foreseeability of litigation.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved consolidated § 1983 lawsuits by inmates, former inmates, and their relatives challenging the procedures used by Campbell and Kenton Counties to deduct authorized jail booking and per diem fees from inmate canteen accounts funded by outside deposits. The plaintiffs did not contest the underlying Kentucky statute allowing such fees but argued that the deduction methods violated procedural due process. After reviewing undisputed facts showing that inmates received notice of the fees and had access to grievance procedures for errors, the court granted the counties' motions for summary judgment and dismissed all claims. It held that the existing notice and post-deprivation remedies satisfied due process requirements, distinguishing contrary precedent and noting that accounts retained sufficient funds for purchases.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a Kentucky resident whose 911 call from his cell phone was routed to Cincinnati, Ohio, due to his area code, resulting in firefighters being dispatched to the wrong address and his home suffering significant fire damage. The City of Cincinnati moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing immunity under Ohio law for governmental functions and the public duty doctrine. The court denied the motion, holding that Kentucky law applies because the plaintiff had significant contacts with Kentucky and Kentucky's policy favors allowing recovery for negligence, so it would not extend comity to Ohio's immunity protections.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Kentucky Speedway sued NASCAR and the International Speedway Corporation (ISC) alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the market for hosting national stock car racing events; the plaintiff claimed that the defendants favored ISC-owned tracks for NEXTEL Cup Series races, withheld races from competitors like Kentucky Speedway despite superior facilities, and engaged in related anti-competitive practices. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state valid antitrust claims. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the allegations adequately pleaded antitrust injury directly resulting from the claimed violations and that the complaint sufficiently stated claims under the Sherman Act. The court ordered discovery to proceed and required the plaintiff to file a further amended complaint with particularity after discovery, followed by potential dispositive motions.

business & regulatory

This antitrust case under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act challenged a rule requiring real estate professionals to join a local Realtors association (and thereby the NAR and its Code of Ethics) to access the Northern Kentucky Multiple Listing Service (NKMLS), which plaintiffs alleged constituted an unlawful tying arrangement and group boycott. Plaintiff Buyer's Corner Realty, a buyer's agent, claimed it joined the Northern Kentucky Association of Realtors only to obtain MLS access and sought damages and injunctive relief. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they suffered no antitrust injury: the tying requirement did not foreclose them from competing associations they would have joined anyway, they were never denied MLS access, and they could not show harm from any restraint. The court therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants without reaching other defenses.

business & regulatory

Kentucky Speedway sued NASCAR and the International Speedway Corporation under the Sherman Act, alleging they conspired to monopolize the market for hosting national stock car racing events and wrongfully denied the plaintiff a NEXTEL Cup Series race. NASCAR moved to transfer venue to Volusia County, Florida, citing forum selection clauses in sanctioning agreements for Busch Series and Craftsman Truck Series races that required litigation in that location. The court denied the transfer motion, holding that the clauses were only marginally relevant to the core dispute over NEXTEL Cup races, that NASCAR had superior bargaining power when imposing them, and that the strong local public interest in resolving the matter in Kentucky—due to community economic and prestige benefits—outweighed the clauses and the plaintiff's forum choice. The decision emphasized that the agreements did not involve the NEXTEL series and that no such clauses bound the co-defendant ISC.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a wrongful death and personal injury action arising from a 2002 highway collision in which a tractor-trailer crossed the median and struck a minivan, killing three passengers and injuring two others. The defendant driver claimed he choked on coffee, experienced tunnel vision, and blacked out, invoking Kentucky's "blackout" defense to negligence claims. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, holding the defense unavailable as a matter of law. The ruling rests on the principle that the blackout defense applies only to sudden, unforeseeable incapacitation without warning and is barred where the driver was violating statutory duties to operate the vehicle carefully and on the right side of the road, or where other negligence such as improper swallowing of coffee caused the loss of control.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves a breach of employment contract claim by Kentucky-based Angstrom Technologies against Florida resident Donald Wray, along with claims under a loan agreement with Florida corporation eStar Lighting, Inc., after the matter was removed from Kentucky state court to federal court. Both defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion as to Wray, reasoning that he had consented to jurisdiction via a forum selection clause in the employment contract and had other relevant contacts with Kentucky, while ordering limited discovery on whether personal jurisdiction exists over eStar due to the unusual facts surrounding the loan agreement.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this Jones Act and general maritime law case, plaintiff Danny Holleran, a seaman employed by defendant Crounse Corporation as a second engineer on a towboat, sued after slipping and falling while throwing a rope during a rushed locking procedure on the Mon River, alleging negligence, unseaworthiness, and entitlement to additional maintenance and cure. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of negligence or unseaworthiness and that the plaintiff's claims lacked support. The court denied the motion, applying the relaxed evidentiary standards from FELA (incorporated by the Jones Act) that require only slightly more than a scintilla of evidence for issues of negligence, foreseeability, and causation to reach a jury; the plaintiff met this threshold with evidence regarding rushed operations, unsafe rope-throwing procedures, possible coal on the deck, and inadequate lighting.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability