A federal court can keep a case even when a related state case is already…
Kamron Karington v. Matt Plapp, et al.
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
A federal court can keep a case even when a related state case is already…
Why it matters
In Kamron Karington v. Matt Plapp, et al., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied the defendants' motion asking the court to abstain from hearing the case and stay proceedings in favor of a parallel lawsuit already underway in Nevada state court. The court found that abstention was not warranted, allowing the federal case to proceed even though overlapping claims were being litigated simultaneously in Nevada.
Who it affects
This ruling most directly affects businesses and individuals who sign contracts with multiple overlapping forum-selection clauses pointing to different courts, since it shows that a federal court may retain a case even when a related state court case is already in progress. It also has practical significance for parties in business acquisition disputes who find themselves facing simultaneous litigation in more than one forum.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Sep 2, 2026
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible appeal to the circuit court.
View possible path
- Decision issued Sep 2, 2026
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible appeal to the circuit court
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
District court
Decision issued
Sep 2, 2026
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
This case arises from the sale of a restaurant marketing software business called Repeat Returns. The seller, Kamron Karington, accepted secured promissory notes instead of an upfront cash payment. The parties signed a series of contracts in November 2023, and those contracts contained different forum-selection clauses pointing to different courts, including Nevada state courts, Kentucky state courts, and the Eastern District of Kentucky federal court. In September 2025, Karington and two co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Nevada state court, alleging that the buyers made false representations to induce the sale and then breached the contracts by falling behind on payments, denying access to company records, and failing to pay Karington for work performed. The defendants answered and filed counterclaims in that Nevada case, alleging that the sellers had misrepresented the software's functionality and seeking rescission of the contracts and damages for fraud. Roughly five months later, in February 2026, Karington filed the present federal lawsuit in Kentucky. The defendants responded by asking the federal court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction and stay the case, arguing that the Nevada state court action was the more appropriate forum and was already further along in litigation. The court denied the defendants' motion. The opinion does not detail every element of the court's reasoning within the excerpted text, but the denial means the federal case in the Eastern District of Kentucky will continue moving forward alongside the Nevada state court action. This ruling does not resolve the underlying disputes about breach of contract or fraud. It only decides that the federal court will not step aside in favor of the Nevada proceeding. The case involves multiple overlapping forum-selection clauses, which appear to have played a role in the jurisdictional questions raised by the parties.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-96-DLB-CJS KAMRON KARINGTON PLAINTIFF v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MATT PLAPP, et al., DEFENDANTS * * * * * * * * * * This matter is before the Court on Defendants Matt Plapp and Driven Media Solutions, LLC’s Motion to Abstain, then Stay. (Doc. # 10). Plaintiff Kamron Karington filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. # 19), Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. # 20-1), and this matter is ripe for the Court’s review. For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion is denied. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case flows from a business transaction in which Defendant Driven Media Solutions, LLC (“DMS”) purchased Loyalty Lock, LLC d/b/a Repeat Returns—a restaurant marketing software business—from Plaintiff. (Doc. # 1 ¶¶ 29-59). Rather than pay for Repeat Returns outright, the Parties structured the transaction so that Defendants would acquire Repeat Returns subject to secured promissory Notes. (Doc. # 10-1 ¶ 13). In November of 2023, to facilitate this transaction, the Parties drafted a series of contracts (the “Transaction Documents”). Relevant to Defendants’ Motion, these include: (1) a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (“MIPA”), (2) an Employment Agreement between DMS and Plaintiff (the “Employment Agreement”), (3) DMS’s Amended Operating Agreement (the “Amended Operating Agreement”), and (4) a Note between Plaintiff and DMS (the “Note”).1 (Doc. # 10-1 ¶ 12). Importantly, each of these Transaction Documents contains a choice-of-law and forum-selection provision. The MIPA provides that: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Nevada. Any litigation involving an alleged breach of this Agreement, or seeking indemnification hereunder, shall be filed in the State of Nevada, Clark County courts or if applicable the Courts of the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada. Any alternative dispute resolution utilized shall take place in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Doc. # 1-1 at 28). Additionally, the Note states that: This Note and the rights and obligations of the parties hereunder shall in all respects be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Nevada, regardless of its principles of conflicts of laws, as to which issues the law of the applicable forum shall govern. Any claim brought in a court to enforce any provision of this Note shall be brought in the courts of the County of Clark, State of Nevada. (Doc. # 19-1 at 6). And the Amended Operating Agreement states: This Agreement and the rights of the parties hereunder will be governed by, interpreted, and enforced in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Any proceeding brought with regard to this agreement or to the Company through this agreement shall be brought in the Courts of the County of Kenton, Commonwealth of Kentucky or if in federal court, in the Eastern District of Kentucky, Covington Division. (Doc. # 19-3 at 24). Finally, the Employment Agreement provides that: Any action to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, shall be brought exclusively in a court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky or in a Federal court located within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and by execution and delivery of this Agreement, Employee and Employer irrevocably consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts and Employee hereby submits to personal jurisdiction in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Employee and Employer irrevocably waive any objection, including any objection based on lack of jurisdiction, improper venue or forum non conveniens, which either may now or hereafter have to the bringing of any action or proceeding in such jurisdiction in respect to this 1 The Transaction Documents also include an additional promissory note and employment agreement not relevant to the instant Motion. Agreement or any transaction related hereto. Employee and Employer acknowledge and agree that any service of legal process by mail in the manner provided for notices under this Agreement constitutes proper legal service of process under applicable law in any action or proceeding under or in respect to this Agreement. (Doc. # 1-2 at 3-4). On September 22, 2025, Plaintiff, along with two co-plaintiffs not party to this action, filed a lawsuit in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada (the “Nevada Action”). (Doc. # 10 at 4; Doc. # 10-1; see also Kamron Karington, et al. v. Matt Plapp, et al., No. A-25-928774-B (8th Jud. Dist. Ct. Nev. filed Sept. 22, 2025)). The Nevada Action plaintiffs allege that, in an effort to induce them to sell their interest in Repeat Returns, Defendants “furnished cash-flow projections, offered assurances of management competence and anticipated revenue growth, and represented that Defendants would meet all contractual obligations in the Transaction Documents.” (Doc. # 10-1 ¶ 29). And the Nevada Action plaintiffs assert that Defendants knew these representations were false at the time they were made. (Id. ¶ 30). Additionally, the Nevada Action plaintiffs argue that Defendants proceeded to breach material terms of the Transaction Documents by, among other things, falling behind on payments under the Note, failing to allow inspection of DMS’s books and records as required under the MIPA, and failing to provide Plaintiff compensation for work performed under the Employment Agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 33-39, 49-72). Defendants filed an answer in the Nevada Action. (Doc. # 10-2). In their answer, Defendants raise several affirmative defenses, arguing that they did not breach the Transaction Documents, or make any false or misleading statements to the Nevada Action plaintiffs. (Id. at 8-9). Further, Defendants brought a counterclaim, alleging that the Nevada Action plaintiffs made “material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the functionality, readiness, and commercial viability of the software platform that induced Defendants to enter into the MIPA and related Transaction Documents.” (Doc. # 10 at 5). As a remedy, Defendants seek rescission of the Transaction Documents, damages for fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Doc. # 10-2 ¶¶ 84-111). The Nevada Action has proceeded beyond the pleading stage—the parties have briefed substantive motions, including a partial motion for summary judgment, and proceeded through early case management conferences. See Docket, Kamron Karington, et al. v. Matt Plapp, et al., No. A-25-928774-B (8th Jud. Dist. Ct. Nev. filed Sept. 22, 2025) https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Portal/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0 (last visited September 2, 2026). On February 27, 2026, roughly five months after initiating the Nevada Action, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. (Doc. # 1). Therein Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to pay compensation owed und
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.