Bruner et al v. Conway et al
Plaintiff: Wildcat Moving, LLC and Raleigh Bruner
Case Number: 3:2012cv00057
Filed: August 21, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office: Frankfort Office
County: Franklin
Presiding Judge: Danny C. Reeves
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 3, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 77 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiffs Raleigh Bruner's and Wildcat Moving, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment 72 is GRANTED with respect to their claims that KRS § 281.615 et seq., and implementing regulations, violate the due p rocess and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Plaintiffs' remaining claims are DISMISSED. 2. The Defendants and their agents, officers, and successors, are ENJOINED from enforcing KRS & #167; 281.615 et seq., and any implementing regulations, as a "Competitor's Veto" as described above in the context of the moving service industry. 3. All claims having been resolved, this matter is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4. A separate Judgment shall issue this date. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 2/3/2014.(CBD)cc: COR
June 13, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 51 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Plaintiffs' First Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for Preliminary Injunction 43 is GRANTED. 2. Effective immediately, and subject to subsequent orders from this Court, the Defendants, as well as their attorneys, agents, officers, representatives, and employees, are ENJOINED from enforcing or attempting to enforce against Plaintiffs Raleigh Bruner and Wildcat Moving, LLC, the Certificate requirement of KRS § 281.615(1), including, but not limited to, in the matter of Commonwealth v. Wildcat Moving, No. 13-CI-645 in the Franklin Circuit Court. 3. The Court hereby WAIVES the requirement of security under Rule 65(c) of the FRCP because the preliminary injunction will require t he Defendants to sustain little or no cost or damage and because the suit is brought in the public interest. See Moltan Co. v. Eagles Picher Indus., 55 F.3d 1171, 1176 (6th Cir. 1995). 4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to immediately forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion (via Facsmile) to the Franklin Circuit Court. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 6/13/2013.(CBD)cc: COR, Franklin Circuit Court Clerk via facsmile
February 25, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 38 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: that Dfts' mtn to dismiss (Record No. 26 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 2/25/2013. (AKR)cc: COR
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bruner et al v. Conway et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Wildcat Moving, LLC
Represented By: Kristopher David Collman
Represented By: Timothy Sandefur
Represented By: Joshua P. Thompson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Raleigh Bruner
Represented By: Timothy Sandefur
Represented By: Kristopher David Collman
Represented By: Joshua P. Thompson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?