John H. Dwyer, Jr.

Edward M. O’Brien (Partner-Louisville, KY), John H. Dwyer (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY), and AJ Bokeno (Associate-Louisville, KY) secured a significant victory in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for the firm’s client, the owner of a manufactured home community, obtaining an Order of Dismissal against all claims brought by more than 30 plaintiffs seeking over $15 million in damages. The plaintiffs, tenants in the client’s community, brought individual and class action claims against the client, alleging multiple theories of liability related to payments under lease agreements and the physical property on which the community sat. The plaintiffs’ allegations included breach of lease, statutory violations, negligence, and fraud. Eddie, John, and AJ responded with an extensively briefed motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that none of the claims met the required legal standards under Indiana law and Seventh Circuit precedent. The court agreed, dismissing all of the plaintiffs’ claims against the client with prejudice, while adopting a majority of the legal arguments and theories advanced by the defense. The Louisville team’s securing a total dismissal of the matter, disposing of more than thirty plaintiffs’ multiple claims, delivered a complete defense win for the firm’s client. 

John Dwyer (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) obtained affirmance of a case in which the plaintiff alleged that she fell in an unsecured water meter vault, leading to a leg injury that resulted in disability. She claimed a total loss of earning capacity and substantial pain and suffering. John secured summary judgment in the trial court based on lack of notice of the alleged defect in the meter vault. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed.

John H. Dwyer Jr. (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) represented an estate administrator in a matter arising from allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and statutory obligations of good faith and fair dealing. The appellant, our client’s former business partner, alleged that the firm’s client conducted nine improper transactions, and sought compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court dismissed all nine transactions through three separate orders, two based on summary judgment and the third after a bench trial. On the appellant’s appeal, John argued that all the transactions were properly recorded in the business’s records, all the parties had equal access to those records, and the appellant chose not to view those records until 2014 and assumed, without proof, that those payments were improper. The Kentucky Court of Appeals addressed each order in turn and affirmed all three orders of the trial court. 

John H. Dwyer Jr. (Of Counsel-Louisville, KY) represented homeowners in the appeal of an easement dispute. At trial, the court terminated the homeowners’ easement as it found that they violated the scope of the easement, and due to the hostility between the parties, it was impossible as a practical matter to accomplish the purpose for which the servitude was created. On appeal, John argued that the trial court erred in unilaterally terminating the easement based on the parties’ inability to get along, and in failing to grant an injunction enjoining the other party from interfering with our clients’ use of their easement. Further, John argued the trial court’s reliance on Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 7.10 was improper. The Kentucky Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the appellee was the primary aggressor and an easement appurtenant cannot be unilaterally terminated because the parties cannot get along. Rather, the proper remedy for misuse of an easement is an injunction, instructing the violating party to refrain from continuing misuse. The Court reversed the trial court’s finding that the easement was terminated, and remanded to the trial court to determine whether our clients are entitled to injunctive relief against the other party for their violation of our clients’ use and enjoyment of the easement. The opposing party sought discretionary review in the Supreme Court of Kentucky, but that court declined review.