Evans et al v. Kentucky High School Athletic Association, No. 3:2009cv00953 - Document 12 (W.D. Ky. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 2/25/2010. For the reasons set forth, 6 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall respond to any pending dispositive motions by 3/24/2010 and Defendants shall reply by 4/5/2010. cc: Counsel (AEP)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09CV-953-H RICHARD C. EVANS and NANCY J. EVANS as next Friends and Parents of E.E.E., PLAINTIFFS V. KENTUCKY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION DEFENDANT ***** CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09CV-967-H MARY ANN SEGER, as Next Friend and Parent of C.S. and CE. S. PLAINTIFF V. KENTUCKY HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, the parents of several high school athletes enrolled in parochial high schools, originally filed their cases in Jefferson Circuit Court. During argument concerning various dispositive motions, Plaintiffs presented arguments which appeared to invoke the United States Constitution in support of their claims. Based upon these arguments, Defendant, Kentucky High School Athletic Association, removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446. In response, Plaintiffs filed a timely motion to remand. Because the precise nature of Plaintiffs arguments triggering the removal seemed unclear, the Court convened a conference. During that conference, the direction of the case and the resolution of the motion to remand came into better focus. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant s regulations as to scholarships and athletic participation are arbitrary, capricious and without a rational basis so far as they affect, in particular, parochial school students. Plaintiffs contend that their primary claims are grounded in Kentucky state statutory and constitutional law. However, they also believe and are likely to argue that Defendant s regulations as applied also violate the United States Constitution. After considerable discussion, the Court advised Plaintiffs counsel that under an application of the well-pleaded complaint rule, he could limit his claims by excluding all federal constitutional remedies and arguments. Counsel declined to do so. Under these circumstances, it became clear that Plaintiffs have asserted and may well rely upon federal constitutional rights in support of their claims. Consequently, the rule under § 1446 was both proper and timely. Being otherwise sufficiently advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to remand is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before March 24, 2010, Plaintiffs shall respond to all pending dispositive motions; and that on or before April 5, 2010, Defendant shall reply. Thereafter, the motions will be submitted. February 25, 2010 cc: Counsel of Record 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.
