27 results for 'judge:"Van Tatenhove"'.
J. Van Tatenhove dismisses the school district from civil rights and defamation claims brought against it and the school board because the board is the correct party in the action. Meanwhile, the board does not have immunity against First Amendment and harassment claims in which a student contends he and his parents had been labelled as racist. Finally, the school board cannot be held liable for defamation perpetrated by an employee.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: August 26, 2024, Case #: 3:23cv64, NOS: Assault, Libel, & Slander - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Civil Rights, Immunity, Defamation
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Van Tatenhove finds for school defendants in civil rights claims brought after two school employees unilaterally searched a colleague's bag without her permission based on the suspicion that she was under the influence of prescription medication, and discovered a gun inside. The employees were acting as officials of the school, even if they searched the bag based on private concerns, because their conduct was "taken under the color or pretense of state law."
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: June 13, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv23, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Immunity, Firearms
J. Van Tatenhove dismisses a police officer's federal claims contending his right to freely associate and travel had been violated when the department continued to circulate press releases stating he had attended the deadly January 6 rally that sought to overthrow the election for Donald Trump by attacking the capital, even though he claims he had only been in D.C. at that time to enjoy a site-seeing trip with his family. The officer's right to travel had not been infringed since he had not been punished for going to D.C. with his family, and his right to associate with his wife had not become the issue when she posted pictures of herself near the rally; instead, he had been investigated and transferred based on his own presence in the country's capital, and nothing in the claim contends he had been transferred due to his marital relationship. Due process claims concerning loss of protected property fail because the officer "merely alleges that he was transferred from a supervisory position to a position without supervisory responsibilities—not that he was removed, suspended, or reduced in grade or pay." The decision did not deprive him of a property interest, and he was not entitled to a hearing.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv11, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Constitution, Employment, Employment Retaliation
J. Van Tatenhove grants the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control's motion to dismiss this suit filed by the coffee shop owner whose alcohol license was revoked. Though the revocation process for the shop's noncompliance with Covid-19 protocols began before the protocols ended, the owner alleges the department violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by continuing the enforcement action after protocols were ended. The owner fails to raise a plausible claim that the enforcement is arbitrary and capricious.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: March 19, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv16, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Licensing, Agency, Covid-19
J. Van Tatenhove finds for an insured in this dispute because the insurer is currently providing a defense against claims contending the insured hurt someone in an assault. However, that case is ongoing and a ruling in this case would not resolve that issue; thus, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear claims contending the insurer is not liable for damages resulting from the personal injury case.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv81, NOS: Insurance - Contract, Categories: Civil Procedure, Insurance, Jurisdiction
J. Van Tatenhove finds in favor of the property owners regarding the jurisdiction of a property damages case. No parties were improperly added to the case, and because there is a reasonable question regarding the amount of damages, the state court is the proper venue for the case.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Van Tatenhove, Filed On: February 8, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv247, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: Damages, Negligence, Jurisdiction