CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
LA BAMBA LICENSING, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LA BAMBA AUTHENTIC MEXICAN CUISINE, INC., nka
La Villa Rica Mexican Cuisine, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-5853 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:16-cv-00527—Charles R. Simpson III, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: July 27, 2023
Before: GILMAN, LARSEN, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
LARSEN, Circuit Judge. La Bamba Licensing, LLC (“La Bamba”) filed suit against
La Bamba Authentic Mexican, Inc. (now known as “La Villa Rica Mexican Cuisine, Inc.”) for
trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act and for common
law unfair competition, alleging that La Villa Rica infringed La Bamba’s registered trademark
“LA BAMBA.” The district court granted summary judgment in favor of La Bamba.
The district court then granted La Bamba an award of profits, costs, and attorneys’ fees. La Villa
Rica appeals the award of profits and attorneys’ fees. We AFFIRM. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
NEW ALBANY MAIN STREET PROPERTIES, dba Port of
Louisville,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WATCO COMPANIES, LLC,
Defendant,
MARIA BOUVETTE,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 22-5351 |
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville.
No. 3:20-cv-00343—Rebecca Grady Jennings, District Judge.
Argued: June 14, 2023
Decided and Filed: July 27, 2023
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; LARSEN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
MURPHY, Circuit Judge. It is well known that the U.S. Constitution incorporates the
“sovereign immunity” from private lawsuits that the states possessed before the founding. This
federal constitutional immunity covers claims filed against the states in federal court, see
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 57–73 (1996), claims filed against them in their
own courts under federal law, see Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 730–54 (1999), and claims filed
against them in another state’s courts, see Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 139 S. Ct. 1485,
1493–99 (2019).
But a state’s sovereign immunity does not end with the federal Constitution. When a
plaintiff pursues state claims against state defendants, these defendants may also invoke the
state’s own common-law or constitutional rules of sovereign immunity. In this case, we must
consider Kentucky’s sovereign-immunity law, which grants “pure” immunity to some state
actors and “governmental” immunity to others. To help develop ports, Kentucky gives its
localities the power to create riverport authorities. The plaintiff in this case brought state claims
against a riverport authority’s executive director. The district court held that Kentucky would
not grant sovereign immunity to this director when sued in her official capacity. We reverse
because she is entitled to Kentucky’s “governmental” form of sovereign immunity. |
|