Advertising Material


Monica Braun

Direct Phone: 859.231.3903

Monica Braun

Monica is a Member in Stoll Keenon Ogden's Lexington office and has been with the firm since 2009.  She serves on the firm’s Board of Directors and Executive Committee and currently serves as Chair of the firm’s Personnel Committee.

Monica is an experienced Member that untangles the regulatory process for her clients, both in administrative proceedings and in the courtroom.  With over a decade of experience in advising utilities, Monica understands the business of providing gas, electric, and water service and how to navigate legal challenges and regulatory requirements.  Monica also represents clients in other heavily regulated industries, including the equine industry.

Her experience includes:

  • Lead counsel in rate adjustment proceedings
  • Lead counsel in eminent domain lawsuits to secure property rights to construct utility infrastructure
  • Lead counsel in obtaining administrative approval of utility mergers and acquisitions
  • Multiple successful appellate cases involving key industry issues

Recent successes include:

  • Diebold v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 2020 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 12 (Ky. App. 2020)
  • Horse Racing Comm'n v. Motion, 592 S.W.3d 739 (Ky. App. 2019)
  • Karem v. Ky. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 2019 Ky. App. Unpub. LEXIS 261 (Ky. App. 2019)

Outside of the office, Monica is a board member for the KY Market of the March of Dimes and volunteers her services to Kentucky Refugee Ministries.

Work Highlights

Patent Infringement, False Advertisement & Antitrust

Static Control Components, Inc., et al. v. Lexmark International, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-84-GFVT (E.D. Ky) (multiple published decisions)

This multi-party, complex litigation involved claims for, among other things, patent infringement, antitrust violations, and false advertising.  SKO argued the issue of standing to assert false advertising claims in front of the Supreme Court on December 3, 2013.

Shareholder Class Action

Margie Elstein v. Lexmark International, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 16-CI-02380 (Fayette Circuit Court)

SKO successfully represented Lexmark in successfully dismissing a proposed class action lawsuit claiming Lexmark’s merger was unfair to shareholders.  A mere three days before the scheduled shareholder vote, an injunction hearing was held and the Court dismissed the lawsuit.

Related Practices: Class Action, Business Litigation

Constitutional Law

Jerry Jamgotchian v. Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, et al., Civil Action No. 11-CI-01047 (Franklin Circuit Court)

SKO represented the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission in a dormant commerce clause challenge filed against it by a thoroughbred owner regarding an industry-standard regulation pertaining to the purchase of horses in claiming races. SKO successfully argued the case before the Kentucky Supreme Court and the Court ruled in the Commission’s favor in a unanimous published opinion.

Patent Infringement, False Advertisement & Antitrust

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, et al., Case No. 10-564-MRB (S.D. of Ohio)

SKO, along with Sidley Austin LLP and Banner & Witcoff, represented Lexmark in a closely-watched patent case at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In a dispute brought by Lexmark over remanufactured printer cartridges, the Federal Circuit held in Lexmark’s favor on domestic and international patent exhaustion issues.  The case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court and will be argued on March 21, 2017.

Protecting Corporation’s Control of Assets from Shareholder Interference

Paul R. Plante, Jr. v. Frank D. Marcum, et al., Civil Action No. 12-CI-0040 (Fayette Circuit Court)

When minority shareholders in a closely-held corporation caused a bank to file an interpleader action regarding control of the corporation’s funds, SKO represented the corporation, and over the objection of the minority shareholders, ensured that the corporation controlled its funds, allowing the business to continue to operate.  

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claim

SKO represented a client in a federal action in California involving claims of fraud and civil conspiracy in connection with a multi-million dollar equine transaction.  SKO obtained a Rule 12 dismissal of the claims against its client, but the Court granted leave to amend.  After amendment of the claims by the Plaintiff, SKO was successful in obtaining another dismissal, with prejudice.