LIST OF ALL CURRENT LITIGATION
(11/11/14) --- * New since last report)
Children’s Rights
I.M. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist.) [filed 10/13]
Our client was nine when an abuse report was made claiming that her step-father had
beaten her leaving bruises on her legs and buttocks. She was interviewed by her school social
worker who determined that everything was fine. She was then interviewed by an employee of
the Indiana Department of Child Services who observed that she had no bruises on her legs and
was told by the child that there had been no abuse. Nevertheless she required the child to expose
her bare buttocks so they could be photographed. This was done without prior notice or
permission to the parents and without court order. The case alleges a violation of the Fourth
Amendment and also state torts. The case has been removed to federal court.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Jacquelyn Bowie Suess
Due Process and Fair Hearing Rights
Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Indiana Family and Social Services
Administration (U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 07/12, our appearance 10/12]
The plaintiff in this case was registered as an unlicensed child care ministry in order to
provide child care services under Indiana law. This registration was terminated by the State,
although the plaintiff was never afforded an opportunity to have a hearing or to contest the
factual allegations made by the State. The original complaint was filed by a private attorney, and
we filed an amended complaint alleging that this violates due process and seeking both an
injunction and damages. A motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part and the case
is proceeding. Summary judgment is being filed.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin Rose, Elizabeth Milliken (private attorney)
Election Issues
Common Cause of Indiana v. Indiana Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana;
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals) [Filed 11/12]
Page |2
Indiana law provides that each major political party nominates exactly ½ of the number
of Superior Court judges to be elected at the general election. This means that when a person is
confronted with the list of judicial candidates there are the exact same nominees as there are
positions. This case alleges that this unique system violates the First Amendment right that
voters have to exercise a meaningful vote. The district court entered judgment in plaintiff’s
favor, striking the law down as unconstitutional. The State is appealing the case.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose
Freedom of Speech and Association
Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana v. Yorktown (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana)
This case challenges an ordinance that prohibits canvassing without obtaining a license
and paying significant fees. There are also significant limitations in the ordinance as to when the
persons may canvass. We are claiming that significant portions of the ordinance violate the First
Amendment. The district court has entered judgment in plaintiff’s favor and Yorktown is not
appealing the case.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose, William R. Groth, Jennifer Washburn
Gohmann Asphalt and Construction v. Cornetta (Clark Superior Court) [Filed 7/08]
An employer involved in the construction of the I-69 Project is seeking a workplace
violence restraining order against a group of environmental protesters. We represent them in an
effort to support their 1st Amendment rights. We have filed for summary judgment and it was
denied and interlocutory appeal was denied.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin Rose
Konchinsky v. Diaz (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [filed 6/14]
Ms. Konchinsky was pulled over, and briefly detained, by two Indianapolis Metropolitan
Police Department Officers because of a bumper sticker in her rear window that stated
“Unmarked Police Car.” She was told to remove the sticker. The suit seeks an injunction and
damages for the alleged unlawful detention and violation of her First Amendment rights. A
favorable settlement is being entered.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kelly R. Eskew, Kenneth J. Falk
Page |3
Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 5/12]
The plaintiff ran in the primary for state representative even though he was not one of the
Marion County Democratic Party slated candidates. He created a campaign flyer that listed him
and other Democrats running for office. There was nothing misleading in the flyer. The Marion
County Election Board, on primary day, seized the flyers because they were in violation of an
Indiana law that prohibited such “slate materials” without permission of all the persons listed.
However, in a 2003 lawsuit against the Marion County Election Board the statute was declared
unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages. It is
stayed pending resolution of the federal case noted below.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose
Mulholland v. Marion County Election Board (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana; Seventh
Circuit) [Filed 10/12]
After we sought summary judgment in the state-court case described immediately above,
the Marion County Election Board issued an order requiring that the plaintiff be subpoenaed to a
hearing before the Board and setting a hearing to investigate his alleged violation of the statute.
This action seeks an order enjoining the Board from subpoenaing him or from otherwise
enforcing the statute. The district court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, but this was
reversed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. It appeared that the defendant was intent on
enforcing the challenged statue and filed for summary judgment and are awaiting a decision.
However, the Election Board has agreed to allow a judgment to be taken against it.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose
Peden v. City of South Bend (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. Of Indiana) [Filed 6/14]
This is a challenge to a South Bend ordinance that imposes requirements on persons
wishing to serve as street performers on the sidewalks of downtown South Bend. The case
alleges that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. A settlement is being pursued.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin M. Rose
Trusty v. Principal (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/13]
The plaintiff, while a senior in high school but outside of school, made a post to another
student’s Twitter account stating that she enjoyed “the fact that we both hate the same girl.” For
this, the school suspended her for a day. The lawsuit challenges this suspension as violating her
First Amendment rights. Although the plaintiff has now graduated, the lawsuit seeks that the
suspension be expunged and also seeks nominal damages.
Page |4
Vawter v. Commissioner, BMV (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Supreme Court) [Filed 4/13]
Our client is a police officer who has had a specialty Fraternal Order of Police license
plate for a number of years inscribed with “0INK.” The BMV has now informed the officer that
he can no longer have the plate because it is offensive and misleading. This case, filed as a class
action, alleges that the BMV is violating the First Amendment. While the case was pending the
Commissioner announced that he was temporarily suspending the personalized license plate
program for future participants. The case was amended to challenge this as well. The trial court
entered judgment in our favor and the case is being appealed. Because the trial court, among
other things, held an Indiana statute unconstitutional, the appeal will be to the Indiana Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court recently entered a stay of the decision pending review.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk
LGBT Rights
Fujii v. Governor (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana, United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, United States Supreme Court ) [Filed 3/14]
This is a challenge to the constitutionality of Indiana Code § 31-11-1-1 that prohibits
same-sex couples from marrying in Indiana and that voids the marriages in Indiana of same-sex
couples who lawfully married in other jurisdictions. Four other lawsuits have been filed
challenging the law and they are all pending before Chief Judge Young. Judge Young entered
summary judgment striking down the law in three of the lawsuits, including our suit. The
Seventh Circuit consolidated the three cases for the appeal and expedited the appeal. Argument
was held on August 26 and on September 4 entered a decision affirming the District Court. The
State sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied review and the case
is final.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Chase Strangio and James
Esseks (National ACLU), Sean Lemieux (representing separate
plaintiffs in the case)
Miscellaneous
Hope v. Indiana Department of Correction (Marion Superior Court ) [Filed 7/14]
In a 2009 case the Indiana Supreme Court held that requiring an individual to register as a
sex offender when the person committed his or her offense prior to the time the law had imposed
the registration obligation violated the Indiana Constitution’s prohibition on ex post facto
punishments. This case challenges the fact that the Department of Correction is still listing
Page |5
these persons as having a registration obligation, absent the person affirmatively filing litigation
to remove the registration obligation.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin M. Rose, Kelly R. Eskew
Purdue Student Publishing Foundation, Inc. d/b/a The Purdue Exponent v. Purdue University
(Tippecanoe Superior Court) [Filed 8/14)
This is a suit by the Purdue newspaper seeking video and audio of an interaction between
one if its student-photographers and law enforcement that took place shortly after the fatal
student shooting on January 21, 2014. After filing Purdue did release the video. It filed a
counterclaim against the Purdue Exponent. Private counsel entered his appearance for the
Exponent and we have withdrawn from the case. The matter will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kelly R. Eskew, Kenneth J. Falk
Prisoners’ Rights
Hos v. Vigo County Sheriff (Vigo Superior Court) [Filed 8/13]
As part of a settlement entered into in 2002 the Vigo County Sheriff and Commissioner
agreed to a population cap of 268 on the Vigo County Jail and agreed that prisoners should be
allowed recreation 3 times a week. The population has greatly exceeded that amount and
prisoners are not getting the requisite amount of recreation. This is a breach of contract action
filed in state court to require the defendants to comply with the contract.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department
of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana)
This case challenges the continued confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners by the
Department of Correction in segregated or extremely isolated prison environments. The case is
brought on behalf of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services which is charged by federal law
for advocating on behalf of the mentally ill. We have added prisoners and class has been
certified and we are moving forward. The case was tried in July of 2011 and the trial court
recently ruled in plaintiffs’ favor, finding that the treatment of these seriously mentally ill
prisoners violates the 8th amendment. The trial court has not yet entered a final remedy and final
judgment.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose, attorneys from Indiana Protection
and Advocacy Services
Page |6
Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff (U.S. Dist.Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/08]
This is a case challenging the conditions at the Monroe County Jail. A motion to dismiss
has been filed by the defendants and was denied. The case has been settled and is open for
monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk
Riker v. Lemmon (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit) [Filed 8/14]
This is an appeal of a case that we did not handle in the District Court. Ms. Riker is a
former employee of the food contractor who provides meals in the prison. While employed Ms.
Riker began a relationship with a prisoner. She is no longer employed in the prison. The DOC is
denying her and the prisoner the right to marry. The District Court ruled against Ms. Riker and
we are appealing this determination. The appeal has recently been filed.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin M. Rose, Kelly R. Eskew, private counsel- Larry M.
Reuben, Aimee M. Gong
Wade v. Medical Contract Monitor, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So.
Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 9/14]
This is a challenge, on 8th Amendment grounds, to the Department of Correction’s
failure to provide a prisoner with necessary hernia surgery. The case was recently filed and we
have moved for a preliminary injunction.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Kelly R. Eskew
Religious Freedoms and Establishment Clause
*Allen-Bey v. Commissioner (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 10/14]
The plaintiff is a DOC prisoner and is the follower of the Moorish Science Temple of
America (“MSTA”) religion. As such he is required to wear a fez when engaged in religious
activities. However, pursuant to policy MSTA members are restricted to wearing fezzes in
chapel. They are not allowed to keep a fez in their cells, even though they must engage in daily
prayer and are unable to access the chapel on a daily basis. Prisoners are allowed to wear
stocking hats, baseball caps, kufis, and yarmulkes both inside and outside of their cells. The
plaintiff is only seeking permission to keep and wear his fez in his cell – he is not seeking to
wear it outside of the cell except in the chapel area.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk
Page |7
*Bogan v. Hamilton (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 9/14]
Following a routine traffic stop the defendant State Police Officer asked the plaintiff,
among other things, if she had accepted Jesus Christ as her savior and then presented her with a
religious pamphlet. The case alleges that the Officer violated both the First Amendment and the
Fourth Amendment.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Kelly R. Eskew
Boyd v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of
Indiana) [Filed 5/14]
In our since-closed case of Willis v. Commissioner, Department of Correction, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana found that the DOC has to provide
kosher diets to all prisoners who have a sincere religious belief that the diet is necessary for the
exercise of their religious beliefs. This is a case, originally file pro se, where we have entered an
appearance and filed an amended complaint for a prisoner who has been denied a kosher diet
allegedly because of a lack of sincerity. We allege that the denial violates the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk
Cabral v. City of Evansville (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana; U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit)
The City of Evansville approved the plan by a local church to post up to 31 six foot high
crosses on public property at the City’s riverfront for a two week period in August. Two
Evansville residents claim that this violates the Establishment Clause. The district court entered
a judgment preventing the display from going forward. The City has not appealed this.
However, the local church, that was allowed to intervene in the case by the trial court, filed to
appeal the matter. The Seventh Circuit entered a decision in our favor. Attorneys’ fees are being
negotiated.
ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose
Center for Inquiry v. Clerk, Marion Circuit Court (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana; U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)
This case challenges the constitutionality of the Indiana law that prevents trained
celebrants from the Center for Inquiry from performing weddings, and prevents persons from
being married by these trained celebrants. The Indiana statute restricts those who can perform
marriages to judge, mayors, county or town clerks, and members of the clergy. The case alleges
that the statute violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court, with
consent of the parties, consolidated the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits
and heard the matter in October of 2012 and ruled in favor of the defendants. On July 14, 2014,
Page |8
the Seventh Circuit ruled in our favor and ordered that a judgment be entered in favor of the
Center for Inquiry. The State did not seek review in the Supreme Court. The case is now final
and we are negotiating attorneys’ fees.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Cook v. Individual Members of the Kosher Review Comm. (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of
Indiana) (Filed 5/14)
We have filed an amended complaint in a pro se case by a prisoner who complains that
he was denied a kosher diet despite being an Orthodox Jew. The case is pending.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Kelly R. Eskew
*Kemp v. Commissioner (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist.) (Filed 10/14]
This is an action by two Jewish prisoners who were at a facility that provided both a
kosher diet and services. The DOC decided to construct what it characterizes as kosher kitchens
at 4 institutions. The prisoners were transferred to one of the institutions so that they could
continue their kosher diets. However, the DOC has not allowed any of the Jewish prisoners to
meet for worship or study at the new institution. Both injunctive and damages are sought.
ATTORNEYS:
Kenneth J. Falk, Kelly R. Eskew
Littlepage v. Commissioner, DOC (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist) (Filed 12/13]
This case challenges the termination of worship and study for those confined to the
DOC’s Miami Correctional Facility who adhere to traditional Native American religion. Such
services and meetings had been allowed for years with prisoners leading the services and study.
However, they were abruptly stopped in June of 2013. A preliminary injunction hearing was set
in April but the parties reached an agreement that has allowed services and study to resume. A
final resolution was not reached and summary judgment is being pursued.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk
Reproductive Rights
*In the Matter of the Licenses of Clinic for Women Physicians (Medical Licensing Board)
[Our appearances entered 10/14]
Page |9
Three physicians who perform abortions for the Clinic for Women in Indianapolis have
been accused of not properly completing paperwork in a proceeding pending before the Medical
Licensing Board. The matter is currently set for hearing in January.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Kelly R. Eskew
Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky v. Commissioner, Indiana State Board of
Health (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/13]
This case challenges new Indiana legislation that requires Planned Parenthood’s
Lafayette, Indiana clinic that does not do surgical abortions, but only provides medications for
non-surgical abortions, to comply with surgical abortion regulations requiring, among other
things, recovery rooms and hand washing stations. The district court granted a preliminary
injunction that had the effect of preventing the regulations from being applied to the Lafayette
clinic. The case is fully briefed on cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment
argument was recently held and we are awaiting a decision.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Talcott Camp (National
ACLU); Helene Krasnoff (National Planned Parenthood)
Rights of Those with Disabilities and Medicaid
Blade v. City of Richmond (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/04]
This case challenges the lack of accessible sidewalks in Richmond, Indiana. A settlement
has been reached and has been approved by the Court. It is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Cantrell v. Town of Liberty (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/02]
This is a challenge under the ADA to the fact that the Town of Liberty does not have
accessible sidewalks. The case has been settled in plaintiff’s favor. It remains open for
monitoring as the sidewalks are made accessible.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
Caylor v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Fayette Superior Court) [Filed
10/12]
The plaintiff is a serious disabled adult who requires constant care and supervision, and
receives services through the Medicaid waiver program to receive this care and supervision. As
P a g e | 10
a result of new service limitations that are being imposed on waiver recipients, the plaintiff’s
services have been dramatically reduced. The lawsuit alleges that this violates the ADA, as well
as state and federal Medicaid law. This case presents the same issue as the Smith case and the
Chickadaunce case below. The case has been stayed pending a resolution to the Chickadaunce
case.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin Rose, Nicole Goodson (private attorney)
Chickadaunce v. Minott (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/13]
The plaintiffs are three individuals who are enrolled in a home-and-community-based
Medicaid waiver program in Indiana. They have been assigned by the State to a category of
individuals that require 24/7, or almost 24/7 care. However, the State has promulgated limits on
services that are far lower than this level of care. The lawsuit challenges these service limits as
violative of the Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff class has
been certified, and the matter is pending. This case presents the same issue as presented by the
Smith and Caylor cases.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin Rose
Culvahouse v. City of Laporte (U.S. Dist.Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 5/06]
This is a class action challenge to the failure of LaPorte to have sidewalks that are
accessible to disabled persons as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both sides
have sought summary judgment. The trial court has entered partial summary judgment in
plaintiffs’ favor. The parties have entered into a settlement of all remaining issues and the case
is open for monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk
Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana v. Brookfield Farms Homeowners’ Assn (U.S.
Dist.Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/14]
This case challenges a restrictive covenant binding all homeowners in a subdivision that
restricted housing to single families that deterred a group home for three unrelated adults from
opening in the subdivision. The complaint alleges that this violates the Fair Housing Act. The
case seeks damages on behalf of the prospective sellers and the Fair Housing Center of Central
Indiana.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin M. Rose, Kelly R. Eskew
P a g e | 11
M.T. v. Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana)
[Filed 8/13]
The plaintiffs are two disabled students who rely on service dogs. The school district
created a policy that requires that a significant amount of documentation be provided at least 10
days before the plaintiffs’ service dogs may accompany them to school. The lawsuit challenges
this policy as violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, and seeks
an injunction against the enforcement of the policy and the plaintiffs’ damages. Cross-motions
for summary judgment are being filed.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin Rose
Overla v. Sheriff of Tippecanoe County (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 3/14]
The plaintiff is an amputee who was imprisoned for some time in the Tippecanoe County
Jail. The case alleges that his disability was not accommodated in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and Indiana law.
ATTORNEYS(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Kelly R. Eskew
Reed v. Minott (U.S. Dist. Ct. – Southern District) [originally filed 1985; ACLU appeared 09/13]
This is a decades-old case originally brought by Legal Services. In 1986, a plaintiff class
won an injunction against both Indiana and the United States against the enforcement of a federal
statute concerning the counting of sibling income for purposes of Medicaid eligibility. In
September, the United States asked the Court to vacate the injunction based on changes to the
applicable law brought about by the Affordable Care Act. We appeared on behalf of the plaintiff
class and are partially opposing the United States’s motion. The matter is pending.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin Rose
Roberts v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Marion Superior Court) [Filed
2/13]
We have amended a complaint in a pre-existing case to file a class action challenging the
State’s failure to use promulgated rules in making eligibility decisions for vocational
rehabilitation services. A class has been certified and a settlement has been reached that will
result in the agency promulgating its standards.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Protection and Advocacy Services attorneys (in
preexisting cases)
P a g e | 12
Smith v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Monroe Circuit Court) [Filed
10/12]
The plaintiff is a serious disabled adult who requires constant care and supervision, and
receives services through the Medicaid waiver program to receive this care and supervision. As
a result of new service limitations that are being imposed on waiver recipients, the plaintiff’s
services have been dramatically reduced. The lawsuit alleges that this violates the ADA, as well
as state and federal Medicaid law. A motion for preliminary injunction has been filed. This case
presents the same issue as the Caylor case and the Chickadaunce case above. The case has been
stayed pending a resolution to the Chickadaunce case.
ATTORNEY(S):
Gavin M. Rose
Steimel v. Minott (U.S. Dist. Court—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/13]
This is a class action challenge to recent actions by the State of Indiana eliminating the
waiting list for a Medicaid waiver program and determining that persons with developmental
disabilities who do not required skilled nursing services may not receive services through a
particular waiver designed to allow the aged and disabled to receive services in the community
as opposed to nursing homes. The case alleges that these actions violate the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, in addition to the Medicaid Act. The trial court has
denied plaintiffs’ request for class certification and the matter is continuing with individual
plaintiffs.
Beckam v. FSSA (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 4/14]
I realize that this case is out of alphabetical order. However, it is a damages case by
persons who would have been class members in the Steimel case immediately above. The
plaintiffs in this case, who lost services when they were removed from the aged and disabled
waiver, seek damages because of the violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
Rehabilitation Act. One of the plaintiffs, like the plaintiff in Steimel, also seeks injunctive relief
to get back on the waiver.
Targett v. City of Brazil (U.S. Dist. Ct.- So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/00]
This case challenges the failure of the City of Brazil to maintain accessible sidewalks in
violation of the ADA. Discovery is being done. A settlement was approved. Contempt was
filed since it is alleged the City has not complied with the settlement. We entered a new
settlement which the City did not comply with and we again sought contempt. The matter was
resolved and we are monitoring.
ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk
P a g e | 13
Search and Seizure Issues
Von Der Haar v. Lieba (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/14]
When the client and an old friend who was visiting her from Greece went to pick up
some of his material that had gone through customs they were sent to the offices of Customs and
Border Protection (“CBP”). He was interrogated for 4-5 hours by CBP agents. During this time
she was interrogated two times, totaling about 20 minutes, by two CBP agents. The agents asked
about the nature of their relationship and also asked about the contents of emails that they had
sent each other. One of agents admitted that their emails had been read. The lawsuit challenges
the client’s seizure as violative of the Fourth Amendment. The case is pending.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose
Warren v. Town of Speedway (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/13]
During the most recent Indianapolis 500 approximately 80 taxi drivers, licensed by the
City of Indianapolis, had their licenses seized by Speedway police for, as of yet, unknown
reasons. Although the licenses were returned after 2-3 days, the drivers lost significant income
in the interim. The case challenges the seizures as violating both the Fourth Amendment and due
process. A settlement has been reached and has been submitted to the Court for provisional
approval and notice to the class. The settlement has been approved and the matter will be closed.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Richard Shevitz and Lynn A. Toops from Cohen
and Malad
Wierciak v. The Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana (U.S. Dist.
Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana ) [Filed 1/14]
A new rule requires that all patients taking certain levels of opioid medication for 3
months or more must agree to be drug tested at least once a year. This class action challenges
the rule as violating the Fourth Amendment. The Medical Licensing Board is issuing a proposed
regulation that will remove the State-mandated requirement that patients take the drug tests.
ATTORNEY(S):
Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose