Tanya Walton Pratt

This case involves a challenge by Indiana pharmacies to an emergency state rulemaking that reduced Medicaid prescription dispensing fees from $4.90 to $3.00 per prescription. After the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction against the fee reduction, the plaintiffs sought an emergency stay or injunction pending appeal of that denial, as well as an order barring the state from seeking damages or recoupment during the appeal. The court denied the stay as to the fee reduction, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits or that the balance of harms and public interest favored relief, particularly given evidence that actual losses were modest and the state needed to meet budget targets. However, the court granted the request regarding damages because the state did not respond to the argument and thus waived the issue. The underlying dispute centers on Medicaid reimbursement rates and administrative procedures for implementing fee changes.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Indiana pharmacies and their trade associations challenging the state's emergency reduction of the Medicaid dispensing fee from $4.90 to $3.00 per prescription, arguing that it violated federal and state law, was inadequately justified, and would cause financial harm to pharmacies while limiting patient access to services. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the fee reduction that had taken effect on July 1, 2011. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, reversing its earlier temporary restraining order. It applied the Seventh Circuit's multi-factor test for injunctive relief, finding that the state's arguments better aligned with the law at this stage regarding the likelihood of success on the merits, adequacy of remedies, irreparable harm, and the public interest.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case involved a plaintiff who was arrested for suspected drunk driving after failing field sobriety tests and refusing a chemical test under Indiana's implied consent law. A search warrant was issued requiring both blood and urine samples; the plaintiff voluntarily provided a blood sample at the hospital but did not provide urine, leading to an involuntary catheterization ordered by police and performed by hospital staff. The plaintiff sued the officers, city, doctor, nurse, and hospital under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment rights to bodily integrity. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the warrant authorized the samples and the catheterization was not clearly unconstitutional under existing precedent at the time.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case is a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Rolanda Hill-Jackson, an Illinois resident, as personal representative of her son Rafael Hill following his death in a 2009 multi-vehicle accident on I-65 in Indiana involving a tractor-trailer operated by defendants. The matter, originally filed in Illinois state court and transferred to federal court in Indiana, centered on cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding the decedent's domicile at the time of death and the applicable choice of law for damages and apportionment of liability. The court denied the plaintiff's motions, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to Hill's domicile, and granted the defendants' motion, holding that Indiana substantive law governs the wrongful death and joint-and-several liability issues. The core reasoning applied Illinois choice-of-law rules, determining that Indiana had the most significant contacts and interests because the accident occurred there, the defendants' conduct took place there, and the relevant conduct and injury were centered in Indiana. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend the complaint to comply with Indiana procedural requirements.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a challenge by an Indiana pharmacy trade association and an independent pharmacy to the state's emergency reduction of the Medicaid dispensing fee paid to pharmacies from $4.90 to $3.00 per prescription. The plaintiffs contended that the fee cut violated federal Medicaid requirements and would cause financial harm to pharmacies while potentially reducing access to services for Medicaid patients. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order after applying the four-factor test for injunctive relief. It found a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from unrecoverable losses and service disruptions, and that the balance of harms favored the plaintiffs over the state's budgetary concerns. The order temporarily enjoins enforcement of the fee reduction pending further proceedings.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between two competing tax software companies that had previously collaborated on projects. After their relationship ended, Manatron sent letters to Indiana county officials and a state agency claiming that Nikish's new RMS software was an illegal derivative copy of Manatron's MVP product, which Nikish then sued over for defamation, tortious interference with business and contractual relationships, and breach of contract. The court granted summary judgment to Manatron on the defamation and tortious interference claims but denied it on the breach of contract claim. For the granted claims, the court found no evidence of actual malice or that the statements were actionable, while the contract claim survived due to ambiguity in the parties' prior settlement agreement regarding confidentiality obligations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This class-action case concerns claims by former members of mutual insurance company Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. who received cash (rather than stock) in exchange for their ownership interests during the company's 2001 demutualization and the related IPO of its parent, Anthem, Inc. The demutualization was conducted under Indiana statutes requiring approval by the state Insurance Commissioner and two-thirds of the members after findings on fairness, statutory compliance, and adequacy of consideration. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the various claims arising from the process. Applying the standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding no genuine issues of material fact on certain issues while allowing others to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns Planned Parenthood of Indiana's challenge to HEA 1210, an Indiana law with a defunding provision (effective immediately) barring state contracts or grants to entities that perform abortions for non-abortion health services like cancer screenings and family planning, and an informed consent provision (effective July 1, 2011) altering required disclosures to patients. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction against both provisions after the law was signed in May 2011. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, after reviewing evidence on funding separation, patient impacts, and statutory language regarding fetal development disclosures. Core reasoning focused on the immediate effects of defunding, audit findings on fund commingling, and whether the consent changes imposed undue burdens or inaccuracies under existing precedent.

abortionhealthcare

This case was a qui tam action under 35 U.S.C. § 292 in which Promote Innovation LLC alleged that Roche Diagnostics falsely marked its ACCU-CHEK diabetes monitoring products with three patents that were either expired or had been ruled unenforceable. The court granted Roche's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. It held that products marked with one patent were not "unpatented articles" as a matter of law due to prior judicial findings, while the complaint failed to allege particularized facts showing Roche's intent to deceive the public for the remaining patents, as required by Rule 9(b) under the standard clarified in In re BP. The dismissal was with prejudice because the plaintiff had already amended twice and did not contest that further amendment would be futile.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from an injury to plaintiff John Moore, an employee of plumbing subcontractor PIPE, who was caught in a pipe vise at a Dave & Buster’s construction site managed by general contractor Shawmut. Moore sued Shawmut for negligence under Indiana law. The court denied Shawmut’s motion for summary judgment and granted Moore’s motion for partial summary judgment, holding that Shawmut assumed a non-delegable contractual duty of care for worksite safety that extended to subcontractors’ employees and that Shawmut could be vicariously liable for PIPE’s negligence. The court found genuine factual disputes remained on whether Shawmut breached that duty and whether any breach proximately caused the injury, precluding full summary judgment.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In Kirk v. City of Kokomo, two Kokomo Police Department officers sued the city, mayor, police chief, and other officers after their demotions, office searches, and public accusations that they leaked confidential documents related to an investigation of a local businessman with ties to the mayor. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a RICO conspiracy, and state-law claims for defamation and false-light publicity. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest in their ranks to support a due-process claim, that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment and § 1983 claims, that the RICO allegations failed to state a claim, and that the state tort claims were barred by immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act for statements made in initiating an administrative proceeding.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a contract dispute between Eli Lilly and Company and Valeant Pharmaceuticals International regarding the interpretation of a 2004 Letter Agreement that addressed cost-sharing for product liability claims related to the Parkinson's drug Permax, which Valeant acquired from a prior licensee. Lilly filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment clarifying Valeant's obligations to share costs, including whether defense costs such as attorneys' fees are covered under the agreement's provisions for pending and future claims. The court granted Lilly's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that the contract language requires the parties to share such costs according to a specified schedule. The decision rested on the plain text of Section 10.3 and related provisions, the parties' prior course of conduct in sharing settlement and defense costs, and the absence of any genuine factual disputes under the summary judgment standard.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose after Brian Hindson, a private club swim team instructor with access to a school pool, secretly filmed Brooke Taflinger changing in a coaches' office in 2000; Hindson later pleaded guilty to child pornography charges. Taflinger sued the Westfield-Washington School Corporation and U.S. Swimming under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violations and under Title IX, along with various state-law tort claims. The court granted the School's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches by private actors and that Hindson was not a state actor. It dismissed one state claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and remanded the remaining supplemental state-law claims to Indiana state court for lack of independent federal jurisdiction.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a contract dispute between Agrigenetics, Inc. d/b/a Mycogen Seeds and Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. over the terms of their 1995 Collaboration Agreement for developing and commercializing corn seeds with insect-resistant Bt traits. Mycogen filed suit for breach of contract and declaratory judgment after Pioneer began distributing covered seeds through third-party companies using Beck's XL bags instead of Pioneer's own branded packaging. The court granted Mycogen's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Section 4.2 of the agreement limited Pioneer to using its proprietary packaging and brand identification on bags for such distributions. The ruling was based on the plain language of the licensing provision, which required branded bags of Pioneer or its affiliates displaying the company name with standard prominence.

business & regulatory

In Twyman v. Burton, the plaintiff, who had worked as a confidential drug informant for the Franklin Police Department, sued two undercover detectives under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming they violated her constitutional rights through unauthorized entry into her home, photographing a personal item, and engaging in sexual harassment and misconduct. Defendant Ryan Mears moved to dismiss the claims against him under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim because the alleged acts did not shock the conscience but allowing the Fourth Amendment search claim and the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim based on gender harassment to proceed. The core reasoning was that the complaint must allege plausible facts showing a constitutional injury caused by state actors, and the specific allegations against Mears met this standard for the surviving claims but not for substantive due process.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case is a patent infringement action brought by Lautzenhiser Technologies against Sunrise Medical (for direct infringement) and its controller suppliers PG Drives and Delphi (for indirect infringement) concerning five patents on electronic features of power wheelchair controllers, including dynamic braking, freewheeling, and head-array input devices. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment focused on whether LT's claims were barred by laches, equitable estoppel, or implied license due to delay in suing after the Lautzenhisers' earlier contacts and inspections involving the defendants. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that laches may apply to certain patents and products but not others based on when infringement could reasonably have been discovered, that equitable estoppel is unavailable against Delphi but presents factual issues for the others, and that implied license cannot be resolved on summary judgment.

propertyprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Ashley Dakota Hendricks, who was arrested, strip-searched, and held in jail for several days in 2007 after a narcotics detective's probable cause affidavit incorrectly identified her due to a revised document that swapped her birthdate and address for those of a different woman suspected of selling cocaine. The plaintiff brought federal and state claims for false arrest, unlawful imprisonment, and illegal search and seizure against Detective John Hall and the New Albany Police Department. The court granted summary judgment to Hall on all claims and to the department on the federal claims plus state emotional distress claims, reasoning that there was no evidence of a departmental custom or policy supporting municipal liability and that the detective's actions did not support individual liability. The court denied summary judgment on the state false arrest and false imprisonment claims against the police department.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In this case, debtors Elliott and Ora Lee Jacobs filed a second Chapter 13 bankruptcy after their first was dismissed, proposing to pay Americredit only the remaining balance on a cram-down from the prior plan for their truck. Americredit objected, arguing the collateral should be valued at its current market value rather than the prior balance. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection and confirmed the plan, but the district court reversed, holding that the Bankruptcy Code requires payment of the replacement value of the collateral at the time of confirmation when the debtor retains the property over the creditor's objection.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure