Allen King v. Eric Taylor, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19109

Background

Rodger King was shot and killed by Kentucky State Trooper Eric Taylor during a home arrest at King's residence.
Plaintiffs, as King's estate administrators, sued Taylor and the Commonwealth under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for excessive force and related claims.
The district court dismissed for lack of proper service and, alternatively, granted summary judgment on the merits in Taylor's favor.
Taylor argued improper service of process; plaintiffs conceded improper service but argued waiver or extension under Rule 4(m).
Evidence showed disputed factual theories about whether King threatened the officers or whether Taylor’s use of force was reasonable, including forensic and expert testimony.
The panel vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, reversing on the service and merits rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Taylor waive or forfeit service defense?	Plaintiffs argued Taylor waived none of the service defenses through conduct.	Taylor contended he did not preserve service defense due to timing and posture of earlier defenses.	Taylor forfeited the service defense by extensive merit-litigation conduct.
Was Taylor's service defense properly preserved under Rule 12(h)?	Rule 12(h) preservation allowed via answer or pre-answer motion.	Service defense needed timely motion; answer sufficed in this case.	Preserved under Rule 12(h)(1) by being raised in the answer and later pursued in summary judgment.
Did Taylor forfeit the service defense through conduct during litigation?	No forfeiture by activity would preclude merits defense.	Taylor’s extensive participation demonstrated a reasonable expectation he would defend merits, causing forfeiture.	Taylor forfeited the service defense due to deliberate, lengthy participation in the case.
Did Taylor’s qualified immunity defeat plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim?	King’s death violated clearly established rights; the force was not reasonable.	Taylor’s actions were reasonable given perceived threat; qualified immunity applies if not clearly established.	Genuine facts exist for a jury to decide whether Taylor violated clearly established rights; not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.
Are the state-law assault, battery, and immunity defenses rightly resolved on summary judgment?	State-law immunity and justification defenses should not bar negligence claims at summary judgment.	Statutory immunity bars recovery if justified; negates liability.	Genuine disputes remain on whether Taylor's belief and actions were justified under Kentucky law; summary judgment inappropriate.

Key Cases Cited

Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999) (personal jurisdiction requires proper service; lack of service bars jurisdiction)
Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (jurisdiction and service principles in corporate contexts)
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (federal court power depends on proper service and jurisdiction)
Ecclesiastical Order of the Ism of Am, Inc. v. Chasin, 845 F.2d 113 (6th Cir. 1988) (service of process and personal jurisdiction standards)
Panaras v. Liquid Carbonic Indus. Corp., 94 F.3d 338 (7th Cir. 1996) (extension of time for service; harmless-error considerations in service)
United States v. Ziegler Bolt & Parts Co., 111 F.3d 878 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (preservation of personal jurisdiction defense in early filings)
Johnson Assocs. Corp. v. HL Operating Corp., 680 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2012) (preserving Rule 12 defenses; notice and pre-answer content)
O’Brien v. R.J. O’Brien & Assocs., Inc., 998 F.2d 1394 (7th Cir. 1993) (answer as notice of dispositive issues; motion practice preferred)
Friedman v. Estate of Presser, 929 F.2d 1151 (6th Cir. 1991) (appearance does not automatically waive defense; timing considerations)
Brandenburg v. Cureton, 882 F.2d 211 (6th Cir. 1989) (body position and physical evidence can influence reasonable-force determinations)
Ciminillo v. Streicher, 434 F.3d 461 (6th Cir. 2006) (clearly established rights; objective reasonableness standard for force)
Bletz v. Gribble, 641 F.3d 752 (6th Cir. 2011) (clearly established standards; genuine disputes preclude summary judgment)
Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444 (6th Cir. 1991) (rights not to be shot absent threat; qualified immunity framework)
Robinson v. Bibb, 840 F.2d 349 (6th Cir. 1988) (deadly-force standards and defense rights)
Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) (state-law qualified official immunity framework)