KCH Services, Inc. v. Vanaire, Inc. et al, No. 3:2005cv00777 - Document 215 (W.D. Ky. 2009)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 187 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jennifer B. Coffman on 7/9/09. cc:counsel (JBM)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-777-C KCH SERVICES, INC., V. PLAINTIFF, MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VANAIRE, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS. *********** This matter is before the court upon the defendant Guillermo Vanegas Sr. s motion for summary judgment (R. 187). The court will deny the motion because, contrary to this defendant s claim, a dispute exists as to the extent of Vanegas Sr. s control over Vanaire, Inc. and his potential liability. In response to the defendant Vanegas Sr. s motion, the plaintiff highlights dozens of statements from deponents revealing diverse aspects of Vanegas Sr. s exercise of authority within Vanaire, Inc.. The plaintiff has come forward with more than a scintilla of evidence, and enough on which a jury could reasonably find in its favor on the issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986); Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989). The inference drawn from the defendant Vanegas Sr. s activity with the defendant Vanaire, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, is that it was so extensive as to render Vanegas Sr. partially responsible for the tortious activity alleged. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 588 (1986) (quoting U.S. v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962)). The genuine issues as to material facts that exist concerning Vanegas Sr. s liability under Kentucky common and statutory law include but are not limited to 1) his control over the company; 2) his involvement in recruiting, hiring, and setting terms for employees who had worked for the plaintiff; and 3) his knowledge of appropriation of any trade secrets by Vanaire from the plaintiff.1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant Guillermo Vanegas Sr. s motion for summary judgment (R. 187) is DENIED. Signed on July 9, 2009 1 See generally White v. Winchester Land Development Corp., 584 S.W. 2d 56, 61 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979) (discussing theories of shareholder liability); Peters v. Frey, 429 S.W.2d 847, 849 (Ky. 1968) (stating that an agent of a corporation is personally liable for a tort committed by him although he was acting for the corporation) (citing Murray v. Cowherd, 147 S.W. 6 (Ky. 1912)). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.