Julie A. Robinson

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

proceduretorts & liability

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.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In this case, Dr. Charles Karlin sued Paul Revere Life Insurance Company and Unum Group after his claim for total disability benefits under a 1992 disability income policy was denied, asserting claims including breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and declaratory judgment. The court addressed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, granting the defendants' motion in part by finding the policy unambiguous and dismissing the negligent misrepresentation claim as barred by Kansas's statute of repose. It denied both parties' motions on whether Karlin qualified as totally disabled under the policy's definition, which requires inability to perform important duties of his occupation as a radiologist while receiving physician's care, leaving that issue for further proceedings. The ruling relied on the policy's explicit language distinguishing total from residual disability, the parties' stipulated facts about Karlin's work activities, and the applicable limitations period for tort claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a traffic collision between an undercover DEA agent and plaintiff Barron Bowling, after which the agent allegedly assaulted and used excessive force against Bowling during his arrest. Following a 19-day bench trial with testimony from law enforcement, eyewitnesses, and experts, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that DEA Special Agent McCue committed assault, battery, and excessive force, that other federal agents failed to stop him, and that Bowling suffered a concussion and post-concussion syndrome as a result. The court granted judgment to the plaintiff on those claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act and awarded $833,250 in damages. It dismissed the remaining claims of civil conspiracy and malicious prosecution on jurisdictional grounds.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by former employee Dawn Shockey and others against Huhtamaki, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act through a policy of requiring nonexempt manufacturing plant workers to perform unpaid overtime work before and after shifts, enforced via a timekeeping system that rounded time in the employer's favor. The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of their claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) covering employees at ten facilities across multiple states. The court granted the motion for conditional certification. It applied the lenient notice-stage standard requiring only substantial allegations that the putative class members were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan, which the plaintiffs satisfied by describing the common off-the-clock work requirement and timekeeping practice. The court noted that a stricter review of whether employees are similarly situated would occur later if the defendant moves to decertify after discovery.

labor & employment

This case involved two defendants charged in a federal narcotics investigation who filed motions to suppress evidence seized during a traffic stop of their vehicle in Kansas. Officers initiated the stop after observing excessively dark window tinting on the car, which violated state law, and a drug-sniffing dog alerted to the presence of narcotics during the encounter, leading to a search that uncovered contraband. The court denied both defendants' motions to suppress the physical evidence, ruling that the initial stop was supported by reasonable suspicion based on the tint violation, the detention was not unreasonably prolonged, and the dog's alert established probable cause for the search. The court limited its ruling to the evidence from the stop and deferred any issues regarding statements until trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case centered on a dispute between plaintiffs Peter Ireland and related entities and defendants including Robert Dodson Sr. and various Dodson companies over alleged breaches of agreements to sell aircraft such as a Boeing 727 and Cessnas along with radio equipment, with claims including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, and unjust enrichment. After a jury trial, the jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs on multiple breach claims, awarding damages totaling over $400,000 plus interest and finding Dodson Sr. personally liable as an alter ego. In this memorandum and order on post-trial motions, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for new trial as well as the plaintiffs' motion for costs, attorneys' fees, and prejudgment interest, finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdicts under applicable standards while adjusting certain awards like interest calculations. The rulings relied on the parties' agreements during trial, the jury's factual determinations, and Kansas law governing contract remedies and fee awards.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a hospital challenging the Provider Reimbursement Review Board's decision declining jurisdiction over additional issues in an appeal of Medicare reimbursement amounts, particularly components of the Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustment and the Medicaid Fraction calculation. The PRRB had determined that the added issues were already resolved as part of a prior settlement agreement covering a broader question in the appeal. The court reviewed whether that jurisdictional ruling was arbitrary and capricious, while also addressing preliminary motions including granting the defendant's request to file a surreply and denying the plaintiff's motion to supplement the record with unrelated authority. The opinion explains the Medicare reimbursement process, state variations in Medicaid programs, and the scope of the settlement but does not reach the underlying substantive reimbursement question.

healthcarefederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit by Pearce Carter against the United States for personal injuries and property damage from a collision with a U.S. Postal Service truck. The plaintiff initially claimed damages not exceeding $27,388.35, including $5,788.35 for damage to a GMC vehicle, but the court had already dismissed claims by co-plaintiff Pearson Carter. The court granted the defendant's partial motion to dismiss the vehicle damage claim and granted in part the motion to limit the ad damnum, capping recoverable damages at $21,600 for medical expenses and pain and suffering. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff was not the owner of the vehicle and that 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b) bars recovery in excess of the amount presented in the administrative claim to the agency.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In United States v. Johnson, defendant Robert Lee Johnson, a parolee previously convicted of a felony drug crime, moved to suppress a firearm discovered during a search of his vehicle by parole officers, leading to his indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). The court denied the motion to suppress after an evidentiary hearing. The core reasoning was that Kansas law requires reasonable suspicion for parolee searches but that the defendant had voluntarily consented to the search of his car, as he agreed without coercion when the officer asked permission, rendering the evidence admissible under the Fourth Amendment. The court also noted that the parole agreement allowed searches and that the officer had developed reasonable suspicion based on the defendant's nervous behavior and references to law enforcement contact.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved trademark infringement and dilution claims by the University of Kansas against defendants selling T-shirts using the university's crimson-and-blue color scheme and word marks. A jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs on all six claims and found all three defendants liable. The court denied the parties' pre-verdict and renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50, finding sufficient evidence in the record—including testimony and blog entries—for the jury to conclude that plaintiffs' marks had secondary meaning and that actual dilution occurred. The court directed entry of final judgment on the verdict.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In United States v. Yass, defendants Isaac Yass and Robert Blechman were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and aggravated identity theft, multiple counts of mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft, based on a scheme using fraudulent bankruptcy petitions and deed transfers to invoke automatic stays and halt lawful foreclosures for paying clients. The government sought criminal forfeiture of a money judgment equal to the proceeds of the fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c). After an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the government's request for a preliminary order of forfeiture. The court reasoned that mail fraud qualifies as a RICO predicate offense making its proceeds subject to forfeiture, and the government established by a preponderance of the evidence the requisite nexus between the fraud scheme and the amount of proceeds obtained.

criminal law

The case concerns Abilene Retail #30, Inc., doing business as Lion’s Den Adult Superstore, which challenged enforcement of K.S.A. § 68-2255, a Kansas statute limiting outdoor signs and advertising for sexually-oriented businesses within one mile of state highways to at most two conforming signs and making violations a class C misdemeanor. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction after an evidentiary hearing. The ruling was based on the likelihood of success on a First Amendment claim, as the statute constitutes a content-based restriction on commercial speech whose size, content, and location limits are not narrowly tailored to serve the state's asserted interests in traffic safety, aesthetics, or mitigating secondary effects.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

The case involved claims by ICE Corp. against Hamilton Sundstrand Corp. and Ratier-Figeac under Kansas law for fraud and misappropriation of trade secrets, with the jury finding liability on the trade secrets claims and determining that the misappropriation was willful and malicious. The jury recommended punitive damages of $2.5 million against Hamilton and $10 million against Ratier, but the court reviewed these advisory awards under the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which authorizes the court to award exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory damages. The court ultimately set punitive damages at $2,397,650 against Hamilton and $9,590,600 against Ratier after applying statutory factors and considering due process constraints on the size of such awards.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involves a rural water district suing a city under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating its rights under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) by annexing properties in its service area and seeking to purchase its assets under K.S.A. § 12-527, with the city filing counterclaims for tortious interference, fraud, and abuse of process. The district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the federal claims and declaratory relief, along with Daubert motions challenging expert testimony about the mandatory nature of the state statute and its effect on curtailing the district's water service rights. The court exercised discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 702 to assess the reliability and relevance of proposed expert opinions based on scientific methods and facts rather than speculation, reviewed written submissions in lieu of a hearing, and declined to reach certain remaining issues as moot. Core reasoning centered on tying the admissibility inquiry to the case facts while applying precedents on rural water district protections.

business & regulatoryfederal powerproperty

The case involved defendant William J. Bell's motion to dismiss an indictment under the federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, on the ground that the law is facially unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The court denied the motion. It reasoned that Tenth Circuit precedents upholding the statute as regulating activities substantially affecting interstate commerce, including United States v. Carolina and United States v. Romero, remained controlling after Gonzales v. Raich and that the statute satisfied the requirements of Commerce Clause jurisprudence as set out in cases such as Lopez and Morrison.

criminal lawfederal power