R. Kenyon Meyer

This case involved enforcement of noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements against former employees who violated their employment contracts when they solicited numerous clients to switch brokerage companies. We successfully enforced the noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements on behalf of our client, the aggrieved insurance brokerage company, then obtained a favorable monetary settlement for our client.

When a circuit court found the arbitration provision of a student enrollment form at Daymar College to be unenforceable, the college turned to Dinsmore for the appeal. A group of students alleged that they were deceived into enrolling at Daymar through false and misleading statements regarding the transferability of credits and availability of job opportunities. All of the students had signed an enrollment form, which contained a provision that stated any dispute related to the form or their enrollment would be handled through arbitration. The provision also stated that the cost of arbitration would be split amongst both parties. After their initial complaint, the students also argued that they were unaware of the arbitration provision on the enrollment form, and that they were pressured by Daymar to sign the enrollment form quickly. The trial court ruled that the provision was procedurally unconscionable and denied the client’s motion to compel arbitration, explaining that students had a limited time to read and comprehend the enrollment form, and also that requiring students with limited income to pay for half of an arbitration proceeding was unconscionable. Upon appeal, we argued that state and federal law strongly favor the enforcement of agreements to arbitrate, and that state law does not support the proposition that the cost of arbitration can render an arbitration provision unconscionable. Furthermore, we argued that the trial court could have severed the cost-splitting provision as an independent covenant, following state policy to strike objectionable provisions to maintain the contract as a whole. The Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the matter for additional proceedings.

Our client, the chief operating officer of a corporate vendor in the railroad industry, was indicted for allegedly engaging in mail fraud by improperly outsourcing business to a company owned by his brother. We performed a significant amount of pre-trial work, and the prosecutor agreed to a pre-trial diversion, which led to all charges being dismissed with prejudice. We also successfully obtained an injunction that required the client’s former company to indemnify him from legal fees.

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.

The Courier-Journal sought records of donations made to the Foundation under the Open Records Act. The Foundation claimed that the privacy exception should allow it to withhold donor information. The trial court and the Court of Appeals agreed. In August 2008, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals ruling and held that donor information must be made public.

In this case we defended a national real estate management company and certain partnerships that were sued in Kentucky regarding contractual issues by a business partner and guarantor. There was already similar litigation pending on similar issues in California. This case was essentially a “race to the courthouse” to determine which state would adjudicate the legal issues. After substantial motion practice, the Court granted our request to abstain from adjudicating the Kentucky case in order to let the California litigation proceed. The California litigation was subsequently settled.

We represented a defendant charged with involvement in a highly-publicized homicide case in Louisville. The client was alleged to have lured two victims out of their house, at which point they were shot and killed by accomplices of the client. The client, along with the two alleged shooters, all faced the death penalty if convicted. Prior to trial, we reached a plea agreement with the prosecution that allowed the client to plead guilty to lesser charges and avoid time in prison.

Competition is fierce in the business world, and companies need to stay vigilant in ensuring that there is a level playing ground. When a fleet maintenance company in Louisville alleged that Insight Communications gave its fleet work to a former employee who was providing them kickbacks, they enlisted Dinsmore’s help. We represented Preferred Automotive Services, who had provided fleet maintenance services to Insight Communications before a former Preferred employee left to start his own fleet business. We alleged that Insight moved their fleet business to the former employee in exchange for free repairs on Insight managers’ personal vehicles, as well as cash and gift cards. During the course of the case, Insight hired an outside attorney to investigate the kickback allegations, but declined to release results of the report. Following a nine-day trial in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, a $2.7 million verdict was awarded to our client. In a separate lawsuit, our client also reached a settlement with the former employee.

The firm represented the Intervening Plaintiff newspaper in an effort to obtain documents which were sealed in a court file. We were primarily successful in that numerous documents were made public.