Jennifer B. Coffman

This case is a multidistrict products liability litigation involving Yamaha Rhino ATVs, in which plaintiffs allege that defects in the vehicle's design caused unexpected rollovers resulting in crushing injuries. The court addressed numerous Daubert motions from both sides to exclude expert testimony on topics including vehicle rollover testing, seatbelt performance, accident reconstruction, and regulatory compliance. The court denied plaintiffs' challenges to certain defense experts' methodologies, such as sled tip-up tests and seatbelt analyses, finding them sufficiently reliable under Daubert standards, while deferring other case-specific issues and some plaintiffs' experts' opinions to transferor courts after remand due to variations in state substantive law and incomplete expert formulations. The opinion emphasizes that federal evidentiary rules apply uniformly but relevance may differ based on underlying state law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a claim by Miller Truck Lines for reimbursement of workers' compensation benefits it paid to the estate of its employee David Thompson, who was killed in a 2008 truck accident caused by the negligence of Tammie Biebel, an employee of Central Refrigerated Service. The court granted Miller's motion for summary judgment in part, ordering CRS to reimburse Miller $439,441.83, while denying CRS's motion and finding no set-off for Thompson's legal fees. The decision rested on the application of Oklahoma law under Kentucky's choice-of-law rules for contract-based subrogation claims, which does not permit such a deduction, even though the accident occurred in Kentucky.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a civil action brought by plaintiff Clark against three defendants under federal statutes prohibiting the sexual exploitation of minors, specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251 and 2252. The complaint alleges that in 2006, when all parties were 14 years old, the defendants coerced Clark into producing a sexually explicit video and then transmitted it online. The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by defendants Roccanova and Rudy in full, granted Lynch's motion only as to counts 2 and 3, and denied the motion to strike, holding that the statutes apply to minors based on their plain language referring to any "person," supporting legislative history focused on protecting children from harm, and relevant precedent on child pornography. The court also found the complaint met pleading standards under Rule 8, determined that unnamed additional parties were not required for joinder under Rule 19, and concluded that the challenged statement in the complaint was material to the claims.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Terry Lee Mullins sued police officer John Marshall under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Marshall's seizure of him—pulling him off another man during a parking-lot altercation—violated the Fourth Amendment because it allowed the other man to retrieve a gun and shoot Mullins. The court granted Marshall's motion for summary judgment. It found no genuine dispute that Marshall knew the other man was armed before intervening, concluded that Marshall's actions were objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and alternatively held that qualified immunity barred the claim because no clearly established constitutional right was shown to have been violated.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

This case arose from a 2007 traffic accident in which Donald Dekalands, an independent contractor hauling freight for Summitt Trucking under a lease agreement, crossed into oncoming traffic and injured plaintiff James Bays while driving the tractor home after dropping off a load. Bays sued Summitt and Dekalands for damages; Great American Assurance Company, which had issued a non-trucking liability policy to Dekalands's wife, intervened seeking a declaration that its policy did not cover the incident. The court denied summary judgment motions by Summitt and Dekalands, granted Great American's motion for declaratory judgment, and held that federal motor-carrier regulations created a rebuttable presumption that Dekalands was operating within the scope of Summitt's business at the time of the crash, which Summitt failed to overcome, while Great American's policy expressly excluded coverage for use in the business of the lessee.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Ashland Inc. and Ash-Three LLC sued Oppenheimer & Co. alleging that it made false statements and material omissions about the liquidity and safety of auction rate securities (ARS) to induce Ashland to purchase and hold those investments as the market collapsed. The claims included federal securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, state securities fraud, common-law fraud, promissory estoppel, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. It reasoned that the plaintiffs did not adequately allege falsity at the time of the statements, reasonable reliance on generic liquidity assurances by a sophisticated investor, or a duty to disclose that would support the claims.

business & regulatory

In Smith v. Thompson, a prisoner at the Western Kentucky Correctional Complex challenged a Kentucky Department of Corrections policy, effective July 6, 2009, that prohibited inmates from wearing or possessing wedding bands with stones or gems, claiming it violated his First Amendment right to religious expression, his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The plaintiff had filed a grievance but initiated the federal lawsuit before receiving a response from the KDOC Commissioner on his final administrative appeal. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that federal law under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) mandates complete exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a prisoner may bring such an action, with no exceptions for imminent harm or other equitable considerations.

criminal lawcivil rightsreligious libertyprocedure

This case involves an ERISA claim by a plaintiff whose long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored group policy issued by LINA were terminated in 2005 after prior reinstatements. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration of a prior discovery order to allow additional evidence outside the administrative record, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Glenn. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, permitting limited discovery into the inherent conflict of interest created by LINA's dual role as plan administrator and payer, as well as certain claims-handling materials that could demonstrate how the conflict affected the decision, while rejecting broader requests for all internal guidelines or the full plan document. The core reasoning was that Glenn recognizes the conflict as a factor in abuse-of-discretion review, which satisfies the Sixth Circuit's threshold for allowing procedural discovery beyond the mere allegation of bias, without changing the general limits on such discovery in ERISA cases.

labor & employmentprocedurehealthcare

The case arose from a 2006 traffic stop and arrest of plaintiff Paul Carter by Kentucky State Police trooper Jason Palmer, after which Carter spent time in jail, faced indictment, and had all charges dismissed in 2007; he then sued the officers in their official and individual capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Kentucky tort law for claims including false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and malicious prosecution. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, eliminating all official-capacity claims and all individual-capacity claims except those for malicious prosecution. Core reasoning included Eleventh Amendment immunity barring § 1983 suits against state officials in their official capacities for damages, as a state is not a 'person' under the statute, and Kentucky precedent treating intentional infliction of emotional distress as a gap-filler tort unavailable when other traditional tort claims like malicious prosecution or false imprisonment already cover the alleged emotional damages. The court accepted the plaintiff's factual allegations as true for the motion but found the complaint insufficient under Twombly to state plausible claims on the dismissed counts.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned plaintiff Lisa McDougal's claim that defendant Altec Industries, Inc. interfered with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act by terminating her employment after she took medical leave for abdominal pain and related issues. The plaintiff had submitted a leave request and a certification form from her doctor indicating a serious health condition, which the employer initially approved through March 30, 2006, but later deemed insufficient due to vagueness on diagnosis and duration. The court evaluated cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that the certification provided adequate information to establish a serious health condition and that the employer had not followed regulatory procedures to seek clarification or allow the plaintiff an opportunity to cure deficiencies before terminating her. As a result, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part on the FMLA interference claim.

labor & employment

The case involved minority-owned businesses along west Broadway in Louisville challenging the Metro Government's 2007 Kentucky Derby traffic control plan, which severely restricted vehicle and pedestrian access to the predominantly African-American West End through roadblocks and pass requirements while not imposing similar measures elsewhere. The plaintiffs claimed violations of procedural due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as First Amendment rights to free association and assembly, asserting that the plan impaired their business operations and was racially discriminatory. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, reasoning that the complaint alleged sufficient facts to potentially establish protected property interests, inadequate procedures, discriminatory treatment, and unreasonable restrictions on public forums that could support relief under the constitutional provisions.

civil rightsfree speechbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a contract dispute between Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co., a Kentucky company, and Brassica Protection Products, LLC, a Maryland company, arising from a 2004 sublicense agreement covering patents licensed from Johns Hopkins University. Caudill filed this action in federal court in Kentucky seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity regarding eight patents, while Brassica had already filed related patent infringement and contract claims in the Southern District of New York. The agreement contained a broad forum-selection clause requiring exclusive jurisdiction in New York state or federal courts in Manhattan. The court granted Brassica's motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), holding that the clause encompassed all claims because they grew out of the contractual relationship and that convenience and justice factors did not outweigh enforcement of the clause.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Peggy Jean Perrin, who sought long-term disability benefits under her employer's policy after a 1990 car accident left her with chronic back and neck pain that prevented her from performing her customer service job. Hartford Life initially approved benefits but later terminated them, concluding she was no longer totally disabled based on medical exams and a 2004 functional capacity evaluation. Perrin moved to reverse the denial, and the court granted the motion, awarding past-due benefits. The court applied de novo review after determining the policy language did not grant the administrator discretionary authority, found the medical evidence and evaluations showed she could not sustain the material duties of her occupation, and rejected the insurer's arguments that prior precedent was inapplicable.

labor & employment

This case involves Electric Insurance Company, as subrogee to General Electric, seeking indemnification from supplier Freudenberg-NOK for over $8 million paid to settle homeowner claims for property damage from leaking dishwashers caused by allegedly defective pump seal assemblies delivered between 1994 and 1996. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were barred by Kentucky's four-year UCC statute of limitations for contracts involving the sale of goods or, alternatively, the residual five-year statute. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the UCC limitations period applies to the contractual indemnity claim and accrues upon tender of delivery rather than upon payment of the underlying claims, while the common-law indemnity claim is subject to the five-year period; it reasoned that applying a later accrual date would undermine the UCC's goals of finality and repose in commercial transactions.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who alleged bodily injury from allegedly defective breast implants manufactured by the defendant, seeking to introduce expert testimony from Dr. Pierre Blais regarding manufacturing defects observed in the implants. The defendant moved to exclude this testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court granted the motion, concluding that the proposed testimony did not satisfy the Daubert reliability standards. Dr. Blais's opinions lacked peer-reviewed publication, scientific testing, and general acceptance in the relevant community, and were based instead on unsubstantiated assertions unrelated to testable scientific theory.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerned a lawsuit brought by the estate and family of inmate Phillip Dewayne Hurst, who died from a methadone overdose at the Fayette County Detention Center after medical providers returned confiscated pills to him. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that a signed release form on the medication return document waived all liability for the inmate's death. The court denied the motion, holding that the form's language only addressed responsibility for the property returned and did not clearly waive claims for personal injury or negligence; the court also noted that any such release would not cover potential wanton negligence under Kentucky law.

criminal lawcivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal arising from an adversary proceeding in which members of the Mitan family sued the Davises for libel and tortious interference based on statements on the Davises' website accusing the Mitans of fraudulent business practices. The bankruptcy court held the Davises liable to Frank Mitan for defamation, awarded him nominal damages, ordered removal of references to him, and enjoined operation of the entire website for the duration of the Chapter 13 plan. On appeal, the district court affirmed the liability finding, concluding that the website's implications about Frank Mitan were defamatory and that the claims were not barred by the one-year statute of limitations under the single-publication rule for internet material. However, the court reversed the injunction as overly broad, reasoning that it unduly restricted the Davises' speech rights without adequate justification when narrower relief could protect Frank Mitan. The matter was remanded for the bankruptcy court to reconsider the scope of any injunctive relief.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure

In Blust v. Berea College, the plaintiffs brought a negligence action against Berea College after Jessica Phelps fell to her death from a cliff known as the Rock on the college's property in Madison County, Kentucky. The plaintiffs claimed the college was negligent for failing to post signs prohibiting trespassing, keep people off the property, or warn of the danger. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the danger of falling from the cliff was open and obvious to someone exercising ordinary care. As a result, the college owed no duty to warn or make the property safe, and the claim failed as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityproperty

This case involved Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife), which administered the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program, seeking to rescind coverage for defendant Russell Conger after he filed a claim for balance and mobility issues. Conger had answered no on his application to a question about prior disorders of the brain or neurological conditions, though his medical history showed longstanding undiagnosed symptoms of ataxia and coordination problems. MetLife rescinded the policy under provisions allowing denial for material misrepresentations or omissions relevant to the claimed condition, and the court reviewed that decision under an abuse of discretion standard due to the plan's grant of interpretive authority. The court granted MetLife's motion for judgment on the administrative record, holding that even if Conger's answer was not factually incorrect, the omission of material information about his symptoms justified rescission because MetLife would not have issued coverage if the facts had been known.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved Yamaha Motor Manufacturing and its dealer Cunningham challenging the Kentucky government's award of a contract for golf cars at state parks to E-Z-Go, claiming that E-Z-Go's vehicles failed to meet ADA-compliant specifications and thus violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act by denying meaningful access to disabled golfers. Plaintiffs had previously lost a related state procurement protest and court action on standing grounds. The court denied E-Z-Go's motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to create genuine issues for trial on whether the bid award constituted discrimination based on disability. It also denied the Commonwealth defendants' summary judgment motion on most claims but granted it as to monetary damages against the individual officials, reasoning that qualified immunity applied because the precise requirement for specialized golf cars to ensure ADA compliance was not clearly established at the time of the events.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory