6:24-cv-00069
E.D. Ky.May 22, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Tara Dizney and Kendra Arthur were students at a cosmetology school in Kentucky, graduating in February 2021.
- Jason Back, a Board inspector, later investigated the School and alleged the Plaintiffs taught classes without proper licenses.
- Back's investigation led to the Board revoking the School's licenses and to criminal charges against the Plaintiffs for theft by failure to make required disposition of property; charges were later dismissed.
- Plaintiffs sued Back and Board Executive Director Julie Campbell for malicious prosecution, wrongful prosecution, and negligence, alleging Back initiated proceedings without probable cause and Campbell was negligent in hiring, retaining, and supervising Back.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the case; Plaintiffs moved to file an amended complaint.
- The Court considered the motions to dismiss and the sufficiency of the amended complaint under relevant immunity and pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| § 1983/malicious prosecution (Back) | Back initiated prosecution without probable cause, based on false report | Back is immune (absolute/quasi-judicial) or had probable cause | Plaintiffs state plausible claims; no immunity at this stage |
| Qualified Immunity (Back § 1983 claim) | Back violated clearly established rights via false, pre-grand-jury statements | Claims tied to grand jury process, so immune | Not immune—allegations concern conduct before the grand jury |
| Statute of Limitations (Back-Negligence) | Claims filed within 1 year of favorable termination | Claims are time-barred | Claims are timely filed |
| Qualified Official Immunity (Campbell) | Hiring/retaining Back was ministerial/not discretionary; acted in bad faith | Hiring, training, and supervising were discretionary; no bad faith | Not immune as to hiring/retention; immune as to training/supervision |
| Negligent Hiring/Retention (Campbell) | Campbell knew/should have known Back was unfit and created risk | Plaintiffs failed to state claim | Plaintiffs state a plausible claim |
| Stay of Proceedings | Stay not warranted; issues are distinct from pending Board proceedings | Stay would promote judicial economy | Stay denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) (standard for qualified official immunity in Kentucky)
- Martin v. O'Daniel, 507 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2016) (qualified official immunity unavailable in malicious prosecution claims)
- Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842 (6th Cir. 1994) (quasi-judicial immunity doctrine)
- King v. Harwood, 852 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2017) (grand jury indictment does not preclude rebuttal of probable cause where false statements alleged)