Maxwell's Pic-Pac, Inc. et al v. Vance et al

Filing 107

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 7/9/2014 ; case and all claims in it are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.cc:counsel (TLB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-18-H
MAXWELL’S PIC-PAC, INC., et. al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.
TONY DEHNER, et. al.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
After the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision of this Court, the case has found its way
back here despite the Circuit having not remanded it. See Maxwell’s Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Dehner,
739 F.3d 936, 939 (6th Cir. 2014). The essence of the dispute concerns the precise scope of that
appellate decision and whether Plaintiffs’ state equal protection claim survives the Sixth
Circuit’s reversal.
Plaintiffs ask that their state claim be dismissed without prejudice in order to preserve
their option to file suit in state court. Defendants argue that the Sixth Circuit reversed this
Court’s grant of summary judgment without remanding any issue and, therefore, no state
constitutional claim remains.

Both sides have presented interesting and potentially viable

arguments.
The pertinent background is as follows.

This Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for

summary judgment on their federal and state equal protection claims, applying the rational basis
standard to both. See Maxwell’s Pic-Pac, Inc. v. Dehner, 887 F. Supp. 2d 733 (W.D. Ky. 2012).
The Court acknowledged, but did not decide, that the analysis under state law might involve a
heightened standard. That is, for the purposes of Plaintiffs’ state equal protection claim, the state
may be required to articulate “a ‘reasonable basis’ or a ‘substantial and justifiable reason’ for

discriminatory legislation.” Id. at 752 (quoting Elk Horn Coal Corp. v. Cheyenne Resources,
Inc., 163 S.W.3d 408, 418−19 (Ky. 2005)). However, because this Court found that Kentucky’s
laws failed the rational basis test, it saw no need to determine whether a heightened standard
applied or analyze Plaintiffs’ claim under that standard. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed
using the rational basis standard and did not discuss the standard applicable to the state equal
protection claim. Consequently, left undecided by any court is whether a heightened standard
applies to state equal protection analysis in this particular case and, if so, whether Kentucky’s
legislative classification meets that standard.
Though its language was imprecise, the Circuit’s intention no doubt was to resolve both
state and federal claims as argued. Certainly, it did not intend to remand this case for further
proceedings on the state constitutional claim.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision therefore fully

resolves Plaintiffs’ claims in this case. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss those claims with
prejudice.
Again, the Court notes that the Sixth Circuit reversed this Court’s findings only insofar as
Kentucky’s laws satisfied the rational basis standard; it did not decide the standard applicable to
Plaintiffs’ state equal protection claim.

For this reason, the preclusive effect of the Sixth

Circuit’s decision on any subsequent state equal protection claim is unclear. Therefore, this
Court’s present dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice does not necessarily bar another
party from pursuing a similar state equal protection claim in state court.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case and all the claims in it are DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

July 9, 2014

cc:

Counsel of Record