123 results for 'court:"USDC Eastern District of Kentucky"'.
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. Wier rules in part for defendants in product liability claims concerning artificial tear products because the court lacks jurisdiction over a defendant headquartered in New York, and the record does not indicate specific actions had been taken in Kentucky in relation to the product; meanwhile, the class alleges the product caused financial, not physical, injuries.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Wier, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 6:23cv20, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Product Liability, Jurisdiction, Class Action
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of Alcoholic Beverage Control's motion to dismiss this suit filed by the coffee shop owner whose alcohol license was revoked.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. Caldwell rules in part for city and police defendants in civil rights and negligence claims contending plaintiff had been misdiagnosed as overdosing on drugs after collapsing at work. Upon being discharged in a delirious state, plaintiff was arrested for trespassing at the hospital, but evidence does not indicate the city or officers either conspired to harm plaintiff or defamed him.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Caldwell, Filed On: March 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv52, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Negligence, Defamation
J. Bunning rules in part for an employer in discrimination claims because evidence indicates the employee was fired for insubordination, not due to his race. However, the employee may continue claims contending the contract was violated when his job duties were altered prior to termination.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge: Bunning, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv26, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Employment Discrimination, Contract
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