Phat's Bar & Grill v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8211
| W.D. Ky. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Bert Williams, Jr. and Sr. sued Louisville Metro and over twenty police officers over raids and arrests at Phat’s Bar & Grill.
- The focus here is on the April 19, 2007 arrest of Williams, Jr. by Officer Kevin Smith and the subsequent prosecution.
- Only federal Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims against Smith remain; others were dismissed.
- Disputed accounts center on Smith’s entry to Phat’s, seizure of Williams, Jr., and the conduct at meetings with prosecutors.
- Evidence includes Phat’s security videos, an arrest video, and trial testimony; there are factual disputes about probable cause and Smith’s role in prosecutions.
- The court analyzes both federal (§1983) and Kentucky-law malicious-prosecution claims, and denies Smith’s summary-judgment motion on those claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Smith participate in the decision to prosecute Williams, Jr.? | Williams, Jr. claims Smith aided in prosecution. | Smith argues prosecutors decided to prosecute independently. | Yes, a reasonable jury could find Smith participated. |
| Was there probable cause to arrest/prosecute Williams, Jr.? | Williams, Jr. contends there was no probable cause. | Smith contends probable cause existed based on the 911 call and events. | Issues of probable cause are genuine and should be resolved by a jury. |
| Did Williams, Jr. suffer a deprivation of liberty distinct from the initial seizure? | Yes, due to prolonged detention and prosecution. | Argues no distinct deprivation beyond the initial seizure. | Yes, sufficient deprivation shown to survive summary judgment. |
| Does Kentucky official immunity defeat the state-law malicious-prosecution claim? | Smith lacks immunity due to bad faith. | Official immunity applies if elements met. | Not entitled to summary judgment on state-law claim; genuine issues remain. |
| Are there genuine issues of material fact that bar summary judgment on the Malicious Prosecution elements under Kentucky law? | Disputes about initiation, malice, and probable cause remain. | Some elements undisputed, but others require fact-finding. | Yes, material facts remain; summary judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010) (participation requires aiding in prosecution, not passive involvement)
- Raine v. Drasin, 621 S.W.2d 895 (Ky. 1981) (malice can be inferred from lack of probable cause; damages defined)
- Arnold v. Wilder, 657 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2011) (initiation occurs when officer arrests and charges plaintiff; officer may initiate proceedings)
- Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) (official immunity analysis includes good faith (bad faith viewed objectively/subjectively))