Experience
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. ESOP Plan Trustees
In this case, we represented two plan trustees of an ESOP on claims that were brought against them for breach of fiduciary duty and claims challenging the value of stock which had been sold by the plan trustees to the ESOP. The plaintiffs were seeking over $30,000,000. Our representation of our clients began after judgment had been entered against the defendants on liability, but prior to a determination of damages. The matter was settled.
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Large National Coal Company
Our firm represented a large national coal company in its claims for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation and tortious interference with contract involving multiple coal contracts and assignments of contract for coal for a power company's North Carolina generating station. A settlement was ultimately reached.
Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Vacation Resort
Plaintiffs were injured while on vacation at a resort in Mexico. They sued our client, the Florida company responsible for the resort's marketing and sales. Plaintiffs claims were dismissed for lack of in personam jurisdiction.
Arbitration
I am experienced in handling such matters individually as well as the chairman of multi-member panels hearing and deciding private arbitrations involving large publicly traded land holding and operating companies to smaller privately held companies addressing disputes over coal reserves, leases, contract mining agreements, and sales agreements, with amounts at stake ranging from less than $1 million to in excess of $100 million. I am also experienced in handling other, non-coal related, commercial disputes as a former American Arbitration Association commercial panel member.
Arch Coal v. Tuco, Inc.
We were advising and assisting the client in very contentious negotiations over a price adjustment provision in a long term, high volume coal supply contract. As it began to become apparent the negotiations were unlikely to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion, we helped formulate a strategy that resulted in a complete re-negotiation of the contract, resulting in new pricing and other significant concessions by the utility. We filed suit on behalf of our client in the 6th Judicial District, Campbell County, Wyoming in anticipation of the filing of a claim by the Defendant utility in its own jurisdiction in Texas. The existence of the case in Wyoming assisted in reaching a commercial resolution to the dispute on terms favorable to the client.
Asbestos Litigation
Defended manufacturer against product liability claims, resulting in defense verdict at trial affirmed on appeal. Defended premises liability case, obtaining summary judgment affirmed by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
Asbestos Premises Litigation
Served as national coordinating counsel, for defendant premises owners in asbestos premises cases pending in state and federal courts. Our client owned and operated facilities were plaintiffs alleged they were exposed to asbestos while working on the premises. We successfully resolved numerous cases through voluntary dismissals and motion practice.
Asbestos Product Liability Litigation
Served as national coordinating counsel for defendant product manufacturers in multiple asbestos product liability cases pending in state and federal courts. The cases involved claims of alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured by our clients. We successfully resolved these cases either through voluntary dismissals or motion practice.
Asset Purchase
Represented the purchaser of assets of the manufacturer of environmental containment equipment for gas stations which was embroiled in a patent infringement dispute with a hostile third party.
Automobile Class Action Litigation
Dinsmore & Shohl represented a large automobile distributor in class action litigation initiated in Ohio and Kentucky, alleging the automobiles distributed by our client that were subject of a nationwide recall, unintentionally accelerated or were prone to such an alleged defect. The class action plaintiffs alleged a variety of claims, including fraud, breaches of express and implied warranties, negligence, and violations of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs also sought compensatory relief in the form of diminished value of the subject vehicles or injunctive relief. Dinsmore & Shohl either successfully removed all such actions to federal court, where they were consolidated in multi-district litigation, or obtained a dismissal of the entire suit.
Automobile Parts Manufacturer v. Health Insurer
We represented a manufacturer of automobile parts in a claim against its health insurer for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation in a dispute over the defendant's alleged failure to provide insurance coverages as promised. Our client sought over $1,000,000 in damages. The matter was settled.
Beneficial Franchise Company v. BankOne, et al.
We were lead counsel for defendants Republic Bank & Trust and River City Bank in patent infringement case involving business method patents purportedly covering systems and software relating to tax refund anticipation loan processing. We successfully settled the case after prevailing with respect to novel contractual third-party claims which we brought against an affiliate of the plaintiff patent owner. Beneficial Franchise Company v. Bank One, et al., Civil No. 00 C 2441 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
Bohl v. Hauke
Dinsmore & Shohl defended American Building Components in a Highland County, Ohio case involving allegations American Building Components breached its limited written warranty, was negligent, and breached an alleged obligation of good faith and fair dealing when it supplied a roof to a general contractor, who constructed a commercial dairy barn for the plaintiff. The case was dismissed based upon the Court's enforcement of a forum selection clause contained in the limited written warranty. In essence, the Court refused to let the plaintiff selectively enforce the provisions of the limited written warranty. The Court's ruling was upheld by Ohio's Fourth Appellate District, and the opinion is published as: Bohl v. Hauke (4th App. Dist. 2009) 180 Ohio App.3d 526.
Breach of Contract and Tort Claims Against Insurance Benefits Company
An insurance benefits company acquired the assets of another company operating as third-party administrator. Shortly after acquisition, the third-party administrator was sued, along with the insurance benefits company for various breach of contract and tort claims. The matters at issue include successor liability, enforceability of arbitration clause and indemnification and indemnity claims.
Breach of Contract in a Case Involving Two Recycling Companies
We represented the plaintiff, a recycling and scrap metal company, in a jury trial centered on allegations of breach of contract. Our client collected metal and had entered into a contract to supply that metal to Industrial Services of America, a larger recycling company. The contract also called for Industrial Services of America to refer certain customers to our client, specifically with regard to retail customers for their recycling needs. However, when the scrap metal salvaging market became increasingly profitable, our client saw that customer referrals were no longer coming. We alleged that Industrial Services of America had breached the contract, and in a two-week jury trial, we proved that the defendant had stopped referring clients. We were awarded a $990,000 jury verdict for the client.
Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Our client and certain fellow minority investors sold an electronic manufacturing services company, to a global electronic manufacturer which renamed the business. Two former executives with the selling company remained in the employ of the new company in lesser capacities. Upon the sale, our client executed a non-compete agreement, as did the two former executives as employees of the new company. Following the expiration of his non-compete agreement, our client invested in a new business, and hired the two executives to join him at his new firm. The company sued our client and the two executives for purportedly violating fiduciary duties, breaching contracts, and misappropriating the company’s trade secrets, employees and customer relationships. We assumed responsibility for this matter after a preliminary injunction hearing was held in which our client and the two executives were represented by prior counsel, at which an injunction was entered against one of the executives. Upon our entry into the matter, we moved for a judgment on the pleadings and secured the dismissal of three counts of the six-count complaint, preventing the company from pursuing any of our three clients in connection with the operations of the new business. We further obtained a dissolution of the injunction upon the executive, allowing him to serve as the chief executive of the new business. The company filed an interlocutory appeal of these rulings, but did not secure its requested emergent relief from the Kentucky Court of Appeals. The company opted not to pursue the remaining breach of fiduciary duty-related claims, and the case was dismissed in full.
Browning v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
This litigation arose out of a car fire. Plaintiff asserted product liability claims against our client. We, in turn, asserted a third-party complaint against the service repair facility which serviced the vehicle, alleging that it failed to adequately diagnose and correct the alleged cause of the fire. Following the completion of a jury trial, we successfully prevailed on a claim against the service repair facility which failed to adequately diagnose and correct the cause of the fire, and were able to recoup those damages on behalf of our client.
Cable Television Company v. Owner of Nursing Home
A cable television company sued our client, the owner of a nursing home, for $500,000 for utilizing the cable company's interior wiring for the nursing home's own use. The parties settled after protracted litigation.
CAE, Inc., et al. v. Three Cities Research, Inc., et al., District of Oregon
I played a lead role in obtaining dismissal in 2009-2010 of a $97 million claim brought against a private equity fund and pertinent directors and officers in Federal District Court in Oregon. The case, brought under civil RICO provisions, involved an international transaction with Canadian entities, and concerned alleged contingent consideration owed under a stock purchase agreement. The issues had been previously raised in Canadian proceedings and remain subject to international arbitration in Canada. I served as the lead attorney in extensive briefing on issues involving forum non conveniens, abstention, arbitration, and RICO, which led the Court to dismiss the case with prejudice.
Campbell v. General Motors Corp.
The Plaintiff asserted product liability and breach of warranty claims against our client arising out of a car fire which occurred in a conversion van. This case was tried to a jury. At the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case-in-chief, the judge granted our motion for a directed verdict and dismissed all of the Plaintiff's claims.
Cape Publications v. City of Louisville
Our firm represented The Courier-Journal in a suit involving the issue of access to the performance evaluations of employees terminated by a public agency. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky ruled that such records were available, with redactions to remove truly personal information.
Cape Publications v. City of Louisville
The firm represented The Courier-Journal, Inc. in an action involving the issue of an exemption under the Open Records Law for the names in police records of the victims of alleged sexual offenses. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky ruled that the City of Louisville was entitled to redact identifying information of alleged sexual violence victims in police records available to the public.
Capital Plus, Inc. v. Parker Enterprises, et al.
Obtained judgment in excess of $2 million, plus punitive damages in excess of $2.1 million, costs and attorneys' fees in a complicated commercial transaction. The verdict was upheld upon appeal to the 1st District Court of Appeals.
Carr-Lambert v. Grant County Bd. of Educ., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89456 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 11, 2011)
We defended the president of the Grant County Board of Education in a third-party complaint that alleged harassment, intimidation, malicious actions and bad faith. The plaintiff, a member of the board, alleged that our client intimidated and retaliated against her for voting not to renew the employment contract of the current superintendent, and claimed damage to her mental health and reputation. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia found that the acts of our client were within the scope of his employment as president of the board, and were not of a malicious purpose or made in bad faith. Summary judgment was granted for our client.
Charles Tinsley Stewart v. Abso, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:08CV-272 (W.D. Ky.)
Successfully defended Abso in an action brought by a consumer alleging claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), wrongful interference with a business expectation, and defamation. The district court granted Abso's motion for summary judgment on all claims. The district court's decision granting Abso's motion for summary judgment is available at 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101865.
Chemed Corporation v. PCI Holding Corp., et al.
We represented Chemed Corporation and its subsidiary Vitas Healthcare Corporation in litigation which we initiated on behalf of Chemed to collect disputed amounts owed as a result of a sale of a former Chemed home health care subsidiary. The defendant asserted numerous counterclaims for breach of contract and alleged fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the sale. After the filing of summary judgment and numerous other pretrial motions, the case was successfully settled shortly before trial.
Chemical Exposure Class Action Litigation
Successfully resolved class action litigation against our client, the operator of a resins manufacturing facility, where plaintiffs asserted claims for personal injury and diminution in property value from the alleged aerial release of chemicals into a surrounding residential neighborhood. After extensive discovery and pretrial motion practice, a Daubert hearing, and the commencement of a jury trial, the case was settled.
City of Cold Spring v. Kentucky League of Cities, Inc., et al.
Via a purported class action complaint, the City of Cold Spring, Kentucky filed a shareholder derivative suit against Kentucky League of Cities, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, "KLC") concerning various alleged transactions identified in an audit report prepared by Kentucky State Auditor, Crit Luallen. In addition to the derivative action, Cold Spring also brought a separate class action alleging direct personal injury against KLC and the 27 individually named KLC board members, who are all current or former mayors of cities throughout Kentucky, and former executives. Cold Spring, seeking to certify a class of nearly 400 cities and municipalities with an interest in KLC, contends that KLC and its directors and officers breached various fiduciary duties to KLC's member cities, misappropriated corporate funds, wasted corporate assets, and made unauthorized loans to directors and officers. On a joint motion to dismiss filed by KLC and the individual defendants, the Fayette Circuit Court construed the law in KLC's favor, dismissing the class action and derivative suit.
Claims of Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act by Debt Purchaser
We represented a debt purchaser against claims of violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). The consumer argued that the debt purchaser violated the FCRA by failing to reasonably investigate the notices of dispute that it received from credit reporting agencies. The district court granted summary judgment to the debt purchaser and held that “no reasonable factfinder could determine that Defendant's investigation was unreasonable. Further, no reasonable factfinder could determine that Defendant furnished the CRAs with inaccurate information given the absence of evidence showing that Plaintiff was not liable on the Account.” The consumer further argued that the debt purchaser violated the FDCPA by “reporting to the CRAs that Plaintiff owed a debt that she did not and that the underlying debt was more recent than it was in connection with an attempt to collect a consumer debt under a credit card." The district court granted summary judgment to the debt purchaser and held that the allegation that the debt sought to be collected is not owed, standing alone, cannot form a basis for a “false and misleading practices” claim under the FDCPA. Moreover, Plaintiff's own expert admitted that the debt purchaser accurately reported the "date opened" and the "FCRA compliance/date of first delinquency" at all times. The district court also awarded reasonable attorney’s fees to the debt purchaser on the FDCPA claim and held that that the debt purchaser established that the FDCPA claim was “brought in bad faith and for purposes of harassment.”
Class Action v. Manufactured House Sellers
We defended a national seller of manufactured housing in state and federal courts against alleged product liability, fraud, and RICO claims based on manufactured housing fire risks. Following successful motion practice, all claims were dismissed.
- Page 8 of 13