David L. Bunning
How Judge Bunning decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
At summary judgment, holds the non-movant to a 'put up or shut up' standard — requiring affirmative record evidence, not a theory of a scheme.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. # 203) is GRANTED. A Judgment in favor of the Defendants will be entered contemporaneously herewith.”
Procedural preferences
On corporate veil-piercing, applies the Kentucky two-prong test, resolving the corporate-separateness prong on summary judgment while leaving the fraud/injustice prong for trial.
“(4) Civil's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaims (Doc. # 164) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, being granted as to the breach of contract claim against ARC on the existence of a contract and a breach thereof, and being granted as to the piercing the corporate veil claim on the lack of corporate separateness, and being denied as to all other claims and elements”
On section 1983 motions to dismiss, dismisses redundant official-capacity claims while allowing individual-capacity claims plausibly pled against the official personally to proceed.
“Defendant Mayor Christopher's Motion to Dismiss the remaining claims against him in his individual capacity (Counts I, VII, and VIII) (Doc. # 46) is DENIED”
Cautions
On employment-discrimination motions to dismiss, dismisses claims against individual supervisors with prejudice (no individual liability under Title VII) while allowing the claims against the entity to proceed.
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Doc. # 203) is GRANTED. A Judgment in favor of the Defendants will be entered contemporaneously herewith.”
“IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Civil's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 104) is GRANTED”
“(4) Civil's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaims (Doc. # 164) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, being granted as to the breach of contract claim against ARC on the existence of a contract and a breach thereof, and being granted as to the piercing the corporate veil claim on the lack of corporate separateness, and being denied as to all other claims and elements”
“(5) Civil's Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Claims (Doc. # 165) is DENIED AS MOOT.”
“(3) Civil's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Doc. # 163) is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 7) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.”
“Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 45) is GRANTED as to the claims against Williamstown City Council members and Mayor Christopher in their official capacities. The claim of punitive damages against the City of Williamstown is DENIED AS MOOT”
“Defendant Mayor Christopher's Motion to Dismiss the remaining claims against him in his individual capacity (Counts I, VII, and VIII) (Doc. # 46) is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Original Complaint and Amended Complaint (Doc. # 12) is GRANTED;”
“The United States' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”
“For these reasons, Defendant's Motion (Doc. # 36) is DENIED.”
“Defendants' Motions to Suppress (Docs. # 17 and 18) are DENIED”
“Nettles's habeas corpus petition (Doc. # 1) is DENIED.”
“Hamilton's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 55) is granted.”
“Ba's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1) is GRANTED;”
Put Judge Bunning's record to work
Ezel drafts and answers grounded in this exact profile: how Judge Bunning actually rules, not a generic AI guess.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer is grounded in Judge Bunning's own signed orders and cites them.