District Court, D. Kansas — appointed by Ronald Reagan
United States v. Blechman
District Court, D. Kansas · 2011-03-23 · cited 1×
The case involves criminal charges against defendants Robert Blechman and Michael Sofris for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to commit bankruptcy fraud by making false oaths and statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, and for criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 401 by violating a federal judge's release conditions through false bankruptcy filings. All alleged acts, including Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions filed in California concerning California property, occurred outside Kansas, prompting pretrial motions to dismiss count one for lack of venue in the District of Kansas, to dismiss count two, and related requests for bills of particulars or James hearings. The court granted joinder of some motions but addressed the venue challenge by noting that Rule 12 permits pretrial dismissal only when no factual development at trial is needed to resolve the issue, and it considered whether overt acts or other connections could establish venue in Kansas. The core reasoning focused on the requirement that venue must be proven as alleged in the indictment and that contested facts about the conspiracy's scope or covering acts could not be resolved pretrial without invading the general issue of guilt.
criminal lawprocedure
Wulf v. Astrue
District Court, D. Kansas · 2011-01-26
This case is an appeal of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and disabled widow's benefits to the plaintiff, who alleged onset of disability in 2006 due to spinal conditions, reflux, and fibromyalgia. The ALJ found the plaintiff not disabled after determining at steps two through four that her impairments were severe but did not meet a listing, that she retained the residual functional capacity for light work, and that she could perform her past work. The court held that the ALJ committed legal error by failing to give proper weight to the treating physician's opinions on fibromyalgia limitations, improperly demanding objective evidence beyond consistent trigger-point findings and the plaintiff's documented complaints of pain and fatigue. The judgment was reversed and remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further consideration of those medical opinions, with other issues left unaddressed pending that review.
healthcareprocedurefederal power
Sharp v. Wellmark, Inc.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2010-10-12 · cited 2×
The case involves the Sharps, who filed a state court action under Kansas law seeking interest on ERISA benefits that Wellmark had already paid pursuant to a prior settlement. Wellmark removed the case to federal court, asserting jurisdiction under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions, and the Sharps moved to remand, arguing lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the claim for interest on delayed ERISA benefits is completely preempted by ERISA because it falls within the scope of the federal statute's remedies, specifically as a request for appropriate equitable relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B). The reasoning centered on ERISA's complete preemption doctrine, which displaces state-law claims that can be recharacterized as federal ERISA claims, distinguishing it from mere conflict preemption that would not support removal.
federal powerhealthcarelabor & employmentprocedure
Cosgrove v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATIVE SVCS.
District Court, D. Kansas · 2010-09-29
The case involves a plaintiff suing the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and several individuals under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his constitutional rights by placing him in an abusive foster home during his childhood. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. It found that the claims against the state agency were barred by sovereign immunity and failed to state a claim, the individual employees were protected by qualified immunity due to insufficient allegations of rights violations, and the claims against the former foster parents were precluded by res judicata from a prior state court judgment. The court also dismissed claims against unnamed defendants because fictitious parties are not permitted.
civil rightsfamily lawprocedure
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Wright
District Court, D. Kansas · 2010-04-13 · cited 3×
The case involves Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG), an interstate natural gas pipeline operator subject to federal regulation by FERC under the Natural Gas Act, challenging Kansas statutes and Kansas Corporation Commission regulations governing underground gas storage facilities. CIG sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the state laws are preempted by the NGA and Pipeline Safety Act and thus violate the Supremacy Clause. The court, relying on stipulated facts about CIG's FERC-certified Boehm Gas Storage Field and the state's post-2001 regulatory response to a storage incident, granted summary judgment to CIG. It held that the state requirements are preempted because they impose additional permitting and compliance obligations that conflict with FERC's exclusive authority over the construction, operation, and abandonment of interstate storage facilities. The core reasoning is that section 1(b) of the NGA establishes a field of exclusive federal regulation, and state efforts to enforce separate standards on FERC-jurisdictional facilities exceed state authority.
business & regulatoryfederal power
Kansas State University v. Prince
District Court, D. Kansas · 2009-12-08 · cited 15×
This case concerns Kansas State University and K-State Athletics, Inc.'s state-court declaratory judgment action against former football coach Ron Prince and his company, seeking a ruling that a Memorandum of Understanding providing for extra payments upon termination without cause is invalid or unenforceable. The defendants removed the case to federal court solely on diversity jurisdiction grounds. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding a lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction after analyzing the citizenship of the parties and applicability of the fraudulent joinder doctrine, while denying any award of costs or attorney fees related to the removal.
procedurelabor & employment