This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order overruling an objection to the debtors' claimed homestead exemption for their home in Lenexa, Kansas. The appellants, including creditors from a prior construction dispute with the debtors' company and the Chapter 7 trustee, challenged the exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(o), arguing that the debtors acquired or encumbered the homestead with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors and seeking to pierce the corporate veil of the debtors' company to establish personal liability. After a multi-day evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court found insufficient grounds to pierce the veil and no evidence of fraudulent intent based on the timing of the homestead acquisition. The district court affirmed the order, concluding that the bankruptcy court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous and its legal conclusions were correct under de novo review.
In Daniels v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the plaintiff brought claims of sex and age discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and corresponding Kansas statutes, along with an Equal Pay Act claim and state-law breach of contract or promissory estoppel claims arising from her employment. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment in full, after determining that the plaintiff had not produced admissible evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on any element of her claims, including the existence of an adverse employment action or pretext. The court also granted in part and denied in part the employer's motions to strike certain deposition testimony and declarations. The decision rested on the summary-judgment record showing insufficient proof under the applicable legal standards for each cause of action.
Plaintiff Kellee Carman sued The CBE Group, Inc., a debt collector, alleging that its 149 telephone calls over two months to her home and work numbers to collect a delinquent credit card account violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by constituting harassment or an unfair practice. The court granted CBE's motion for summary judgment on the FDCPA claims after reviewing the uncontroverted facts about the volume and pattern of calls, determining there was no genuine dispute of material fact showing a statutory violation. It denied the request for sanctions, finding the claims were not frivolous despite procedural shortcomings in the plaintiff's filings. The decision applied the summary judgment standard under Rule 56 and local rules requiring specific factual disputes supported by the record.
This case involves negligence claims arising from a 2007 fatal motor vehicle collision in Kansas between a passenger vehicle and a tractor-trailer operated by an employee of Old Dominion Freight Line, with the plaintiff serving as administratrix of the deceased passenger's estate suing the driver, the trucking company, and its insurer. The court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment centered on whether the claims were barred by statutes of limitations under Kansas and Oklahoma law and whether the insurer could face direct liability. It denied the defendants' motions on the statute of limitations, granted the insurer's motion dismissing direct liability claims, and denied the remaining combined motions, while also granting the plaintiff leave to file a surreply. The rulings applied the summary judgment standard of no genuine disputes of material fact, viewed evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and interpreted relevant state probate, survival, and insurance statutes based on the uncontroverted facts of the accident and subsequent proceedings.
This case involves a dispute over whether a gas storage lease on Cline's Kansas property remains valid after alleged late rental payments by Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. Southern Star filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment affirming the lease and alleging slander of title based on Cline's affidavit declaring the lease void, while Cline counterclaimed to terminate the lease and asserted claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress along with punitive damages. The court granted Southern Star's motion for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the emotional distress and punitive damages claims, finding the allegations failed to plausibly allege extreme and outrageous conduct or severe distress under Kansas law, and denied without prejudice Cline's cross-motion to dismiss the slander of title claim.
This case involved two school district employees who sued their employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, claiming they suffered wage reductions due to their age following a reduction-in-force reassignment. The district court originally dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies within the applicable statute of limitations under then-controlling precedent from Ledbetter v. Goodyear. On remand from the Tenth Circuit after passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the court reconsidered whether the new law rendered the pay-related claims timely. The court held that the Act did not extend the filing period because the underlying adverse employment actions—the RIF and reassignment decisions—were discrete events that occurred and were communicated outside the charging period, with subsequent wage payments merely constituting effects of those decisions. Accordingly, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on timeliness grounds.