Joseph Martin Hood

In United States v. Gayhart, the defendant faced charges under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for knowingly selling a red-tailed hawk and taking it with intent to sell without a permit, alleged as felonies under 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 and 707(b). The defendant moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, claiming it did not properly charge a felony because it lacked an allegation that he knew the bird was a migratory species protected by the Act. The court denied the motion, concluding that the indictment tracked the statutory language where "knowingly" modifies only the acts of taking and selling. The court reasoned that the mens rea requirement does not extend to awareness of the bird's specific identity or protected status under the MBTA.

criminal law

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's judgment in an adversary proceeding where the trustee alleged that appellant Neil Baker benefited from a fraudulent transfer by the debtor ClassicStar, LLC, resulting in an $801,558.70 judgment against him. The district court considered whether it had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) to hear the appeal from the bankruptcy court's March 14, 2011 Order of Judgment, which resolved the merits but deferred rulings on interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. The court lifted an abeyance order and dismissed the appeal as untimely, finding that the notice of appeal filed on May 4, 2011, exceeded the 14-day deadline under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 because the March 14 order was a final judgment on the fraudulent transfer claim. The reasoning centered on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 and 58, which establish that unresolved collateral issues like discretionary fees and interest do not prevent finality of the merits adjudication, citing precedents such as Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. and Saleem v. Toombs.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a former detainee's claims that jail officials at the Jessamine County Detention Center were deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs when she went into labor and gave birth unassisted in a holdover cell, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, along with related claims of failure to train or supervise, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Kentucky law. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment on these federal and state claims, applying the standard that requires no genuine issue of material fact for judgment as a matter of law. It granted the motion in part and denied it in part, reasoning that the plaintiff's experience of fear and suffering during unassisted labor was a cognizable injury under the Eighth Amendment even though the baby was born healthy, while also evaluating qualified immunity, official-capacity claims, and state-law immunities and duties.

civil rightscriminal lawhealthcareprocedure

The case concerned parents seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under their Allstate auto policy after their adult daughter was killed in a highway accident while driving her own uninsured Mazda 3. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment. It held that the daughter did not qualify as a resident relative because the facts showed she had no intention of resuming residence in her parents' Ohio household. The court also found that the policy's other-owned-vehicle exclusion independently barred coverage because the fatal collision occurred while she was getting out of her separately owned, uninsured car.

torts & liability

The case concerns a motion to remand a removed diversity action from federal district court back to Kentucky state court. After the court had previously determined that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 based on the plaintiff's pre-removal settlement demand, the plaintiff moved to remand, citing his inability to prove lost wages and a post-removal stipulation limiting damages below the jurisdictional threshold. The court denied the motion, explaining that the amount in controversy for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is evaluated as of the time of removal and that subsequent events reducing the claimed damages do not divest federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

procedurefederal power

In this case, the plaintiff, as executrix of an estate, sued a cardiovascular surgeon in federal court for a declaratory judgment after a breach of contract dispute arising from the defendant's failure to appear at depositions in an underlying Kentucky medical malpractice action. The plaintiff sought a ruling that a Kentucky state court was required to give full faith and credit to a Missouri court's prior determination upholding the validity of service and a default judgment against the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Colorado River abstention doctrine or the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court found that neither abstention doctrine applied because the proceedings were not parallel and the state judgment was not final, but determined that the five factors for exercising declaratory judgment jurisdiction weighed against proceeding, as the action would not settle the controversy, would encroach on state court authority, and a better remedy existed via appeal in Kentucky state court. The court denied the motion to dismiss but ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice.

procedurefederal power

This case involves plaintiffs, the widow and children of Ernest Loan, seeking accidental death benefits under an ERISA-governed group insurance policy issued by Prudential after Loan died from a fall down stairs while intoxicated. Following a Sixth Circuit remand finding the policy's intoxication exclusion ambiguous and requiring a full and fair review, the district court awarded benefits to the plaintiffs. The court then granted prejudgment interest to compensate for the time value of money wrongly withheld, post-judgment interest as required by statute, and reasonable attorneys' fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) based on the lodestar method, but denied an enhancement to those fees.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned an insurance coverage dispute in which Nautilus Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment that its commercial general liability policy issued to Structure Builders & Riggers Machinery Moving Division, LLC did not cover claims related to Structure's alleged breach of contract for failing to pay for a replacement crane after a bridge crane fell during installation work at a manufacturing facility. The court granted Nautilus's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the insurer owed no duty to defend or indemnify Structure in the underlying state court action. The core reasoning was that the breach of contract claims did not qualify as an "occurrence" under the policy because the insured's intentional failure to comply with contractual terms was not a fortuitous accident. The court determined it was unnecessary to reach Nautilus's alternative arguments based on various policy exclusions.

business & regulatory

The case involved a student with Type 1 diabetes whose parents sought to have him attend his neighborhood school rather than one with an on-site nurse, as required by the school board due to state regulations on insulin pump monitoring. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, Fourteenth Amendment, and Kentucky Civil Rights Act. The reasoning was that the student received appropriate accommodations at the alternative school, suffered no denial of educational benefits, and the board's policy was based on legal requirements for qualified medical personnel, without violating federal or state anti-discrimination laws.

civil rights

In this case, plaintiff Michelle Green sued the Nicholas County School District and its principal on behalf of her minor child D.G., alleging that the principal used excessive force by grabbing and slamming the child to the ground, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with related state-law tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, assault, and battery. The school district moved to dismiss the federal claim, arguing lack of a policy or custom causing any constitutional violation and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court held that the school district is a "person" subject to suit under § 1983 and lacks Eleventh Amendment immunity, but granted dismissal because the complaint failed to allege any policy or custom by the district that led to the incident. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims against the district and dismissed them without prejudice.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves a defendant charged with escaping from federal custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), who sought to present a defense of medical necessity or duress at trial, arguing that prison officials failed to provide necessary heart surgery despite his repeated requests and grievances. The court held that the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing on all required elements of the necessity defense. The reasoning centered on the lack of an imminent threat, as the Bureau of Prisons had acknowledged the need for treatment and promised it, allowing for further administrative or judicial remedies, and the absence of a causal link between the escape and obtaining medical care, given the defendant's lack of a plan and the likelihood of recapture.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Rodney Cochran suing sheriff Curt Folger and deputies Dan and Don Gilliam under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by supervising and assisting landlords in seizing and removing his personal property, including guns and other items, during execution of an eviction warrant for unpaid rent. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the Fifth Amendment takings claim, the failure-to-train claim against the sheriff, and all official-capacity claims, while allowing the Fourth Amendment seizure and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims to proceed along with the request for punitive damages. The core reasoning was that the record presented genuine issues of material fact on whether the deputies' conduct in facilitating the unauthorized taking of personal property was objectively unreasonable in light of clearly established law, but the other claims lacked evidentiary support or legal basis.

civil rightsproperty

This case involves a breach of contract claim by J & L Canterbury Farms against GeoStar Corporation arising from a 2004 Purchase Agreement in which J & L relinquished its interests in ClassicStar mare lease shares in exchange for Gastar stock valued at $6 million, with an option to sell the stock back for $8 million after January 1, 2006. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted J & L's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. Applying Michigan law per the contract's choice-of-law clause, the court found that a valid contract existed, its terms required GeoStar to transfer the stock or honor the put option, GeoStar failed to perform, and this breach caused J & L damages of $8 million. The court rejected GeoStar's arguments about the agreement's timing and enforceability, concluding that the executed document memorialized an obligation that GeoStar had not fulfilled.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order determining that Kentucky Processing Company did not owe U.S. Trustee quarterly fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6) for periods after its Chapter 11 plan was confirmed, when the case remained open pending unrelated litigation but no disbursements occurred. The District Court reversed, holding that the minimum quarterly fee of $325 must be paid for each quarter until the case is converted, dismissed, or closed by court order. The court reasoned from the statute's plain language that fees are required in every open Chapter 11 case and that zero disbursements qualify as totaling less than $15,000, triggering the minimum fee. It rejected the Bankruptcy Court's view that a disbursement of zero cannot trigger fees and cited supporting precedent from other courts interpreting the same provision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a bankruptcy trustee's adversary proceeding against Deutsche Bank and related parties seeking to challenge a secured claim based on a mortgage on the debtor's property. The trustee served the complaint on Deutsche but not on Litton Loan Servicing, the agent designated on the proof of claim for notices in the bankruptcy case, leading to a default judgment when no response was filed. The bankruptcy court denied the appellants' motion to vacate the default judgment. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the judgment was void because proper service under Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(3) requires notice to the appointed agent, and without it there was no obligation to respond or due process. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as implemented by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, filed by a Swedish resident mother seeking the return of her three-year-old daughter after the father removed the child from Sweden to Kentucky without consent. The child had lived in Sweden since birth and the parents shared joint custody under Swedish law. The court granted the petition and ordered the child's return, reasoning that the respondent father failed to file an answer or respond to the petition despite being served, causing the allegations to be deemed admitted under federal rules; the undisputed facts established that Sweden was the child's habitual residence, the mother was exercising custody rights at the time of removal, and no defenses under the Convention were presented or supported by evidence.

family lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs suing Bucyrus entities and other companies for breach of contract, negligence, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud, and loss of consortium, stemming from an employment offer extended from Kentucky for a mining supervisor position in the Bahamas where the employee was arrested and jailed due to invalid immigration and work status. Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing the case belonged in Bahamian courts. The court denied the motion, holding that defendants failed to show the Bahamas was an available forum for the litigation and that both private interest factors (such as access to evidence and witnesses) and public interest factors (including the district's connections to the employment negotiations and the plaintiff's home forum) weighed against dismissal under the Gulf Oil standards, with appropriate deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum.

proceduretorts & liabilitylabor & employmentimmigration

This case involves a plaintiff's appeal under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of her claims for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance Benefits, which she sought based on lower back pain and major depressive disorder with an alleged onset date in 2001. After reviewing extensive medical records documenting her psychiatric treatment, GAF scores, and work history, the district court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the Commissioner's motion, thereby upholding the ALJ's determination that she was not disabled. The decision rested on the conclusion that the ALJ's findings regarding her residual functional capacity and ability to perform available jobs were supported by the administrative record.

federal powerhealthcare

In this case, Preferred Automotive Sales, Inc., a used car dealer, sued MSC and DCFS after losing a state court lawsuit to a buyer who was awarded damages for fraud and violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act related to undisclosed defects in a 1998 Mercedes-Benz. Preferred sought indemnity, contribution, and damages from the defendants based on claims of breach of contract, negligence, and fraud arising from its purchase of the vehicle at an MSC auction and subsequent repairs. The federal court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that Preferred's claims were barred by collateral estoppel because the state court jury had already determined that Preferred knowingly and intentionally misrepresented the vehicle's condition. The court reasoned that Kentucky procedural rules allowed third-party claims for indemnity to be raised in the original action and that relitigating the issue of Preferred's knowledge and intent was precluded.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiffs suing the Fayette County Board of Education and its officials for alleged sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse, as well as exposure to illegal drugs by school employees, with claims that officials failed to report or address the misconduct. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title IX along with various state law claims, after which the case was removed to federal court. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to drop the federal claims but dismissed those federal claims with prejudice, while declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and remanding them to Fayette Circuit Court.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability