# Opposition Brief — DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_1335%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2005
- **Citation:** 544 U.S. 961

## Text

No. 04-1018 SOEIRE OF THE CLERK |

In the
Supreme Court of the United States

DLX, Inc.,
Petitioner,
V.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, KENTUCKY ENVIRONMENTAL
AND PUBLIC PROTECTION CABINET, AND THE SECRETARY,
KENTUCKY ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC PROTECTION
CABINET, IN HER OrriciAL Capacity,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

S. BRADFORD SMOCK Topp E. LEATHERMAN
Counsel of Record ELIZABETH UNGAR NATTER

RANDALL G. McDowELL KENTUCKY OFFICE OF THE

ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC ATTORNEY GENERAL
PROTECTION CABINET 1024 CapirAL CENTER DRIVE

OFFICE OF LEGAL Services Suite 200

#2 Hupson HoLLow FRANKFORT, KY 40601-8204

FRANKFORT, KY 40601 (502) 696-5389

(502) 564-2356

Becker Gallagher Legal Publishing, Inc. 800.890.5001

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF
QUESTION PRESENTED

This case more particularly involves DLX’s attempt to
recover money damages, under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments, against a state defendant in federal court after
DLX’s aborted efforts to obtain a coal mine permit
amendment which might have been issued. The question
presented is as follows:

Did the Sixth Circuit err when it determined that the
Commonwealth of Kentucky was immune from suit in
federal court for money damages on account of an
alleged regulatory “taking” of coal?

SUPREME COURT RULES 29.6
AND 14.1(b) STATEMENT

The actual Respondent is the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The named Respondent, Environmental and Public Protection
Cabinet, is an executive agency of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, formerly known as the Kentucky Natural
Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. The named
Respondent, Secretary of the Environmental and Public
Protection Cabinet (LaJuana Wilcher being substituted for
~ James E. Bickford) is an executive agency head sued in her
official capacity. There is no _ dispute that each
Respondent— Kentucky, the Cabinet and the Secretary sued in
her official capacity—is “the State” for purposes of this
action. (R.8, DLX Response to Motion to Dismiss, J.A., p.
299, footnote 1.) All nominal Respondents are represented
herein by all counsel appearing on the cover of this Brief in
Opposition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF QUESTION
en aie ter ager tbe

SUPREME COURT RULES 29.6 AND
ig ee nk en ee

ee Oe APR MEND 5 05s 66. Ub wena e's obs eo lil

COUNTERSTATEMENT OF BASIS FOR
NS aa. -d on ok 4 4 08 4 Mae Roe

EI rs ee ee
REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION .......

I. There Is No Split or Conflict of
Authority Among Circuits on the
Question of the Applicability of
Eleventh Amendment Immunity to
I c--s 6 g's whch a wa ae 68

iV

Il. The Sixth Circuit’s Opinion Regarding
Eleventh Amendment Immunity Does
Not Conflict With Supreme Court
Precedent, and Thus the Question
Presented Is Not of Such Importance
As to Warrant This Court’s Attention ..... 10

Ill. There are Several Other Issues
Necessitating this Court’s Affirmance
on the Record, or Affirmance By a
Lower Court in the Event of Remand. ..... 16

GR Awe esa ented oe eee 568 21

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases 5

ee

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) ......... 11, 14

Anderson v. Charter Township of Ypsilanti,
266 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2001) ............... 20

Arnett v. Myers, 281 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2002)... 8,9, 10

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon,
473 U.S. 234 (1985), reh. denied, 473 U.S.926 ... 15

Boise Cascade Corporation v. State of Oregon,
991 P.2d 563 (Or. 1999), review denied,
18 P.3d 1099 (2000), cert. denied,
We UD, SER CED inks ha owe eee 14

Broughton Lumber Company v. Columbia River
Gorge Commission, 975 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1992),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 813 (1993) ............ 7

Citadei Corp. v. Puerto Rico Highway Authority,
695 F.2d 31 (Ist Cir. 1982), cert. denied,
404 US. S13 (99835) 2 ok 8c ee cc 7

Commonwealth of Kentucky v. DLX, Inc..,
42 S.W.3d 624 (Ky. 2001) .-............... 5

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet v. Stearns Coal
& Lumber Company, 678 S.W.2d 378 (Ky. 1984),
appeal dismissed at 473 U.S. 921 (1985),
reh. denied, 473 U.S.926 ................. 15

vi

Davis v. United States, 417 U.S. 333 (1974)... 2... . 10
Pistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
G60 UB. GEE Ce 0 i cp cee ues 145060455005 6
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) ............ 9 7
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v.
Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) ......... 13, 14
Garrett v. Illinois, 612 F.2d 1038 (7th Cir. 1980),
cert. denied, 449 U.S. 821 (1980) ............ 7
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)... 2.2.2.2... 10

John G. and Marie Stella Kenedy Memorial Foundation
v. Mauro, 21 F.3d 667 (Sth Cir. 1994),
cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 (1994) ........... 7

Kovacevich v. Kent State University, 224 F.3d 806
ts Cle. FORD 0 0 0 Ske wine Chaswoeseeeee 14

Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 39141979) ...... 11, 16

Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp.,
337 U.S. 682 (1949), reh. denied, 338 U.S. 840... 12

ee ee

Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 (1934)... . 2... 12

MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, et al.,
477 U.S. 340 (1986), reh. denied, 478 U.S. 1035 . . 17

McKesson Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages
~ and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990) ........ Pre r

i ol

vu

Migra v. Warren City School District Board of

Education, 465 U.S. 75 (1984) ........000.... 19
Nevada Dept. of Human Resources v. Hibbs,

a es ee 13
Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. County of Kent, Michigan,

Pee Dae SOD ok 6 4 0 60 0 0:6 800064468 17
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) ..... 14

Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC v. Rhode Island,
337 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2003), cert. denied,
oo. Se. ee eee 18

Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106 (1994) .. 22.0000... 13

Robinson v. Georgia Department of Transportation,
966 F.2d 637 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
PO es DUMB CRUE vc cack vcadesececewcs 8

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413 (1923) 6

San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of
San Francisco, et al., 364 F.3d 1088
(9th Cir. 2004), cert. granted,
125 S.Ct. 685 (U.S. Dec. 10, 2004)
Ge b The Respondent is aware that the issue of the preclusive effect of
a state court takings adjudication, in the face of an attempted
reservation of the federal claim, is currently pending this Court’s
review in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco,
et al., 364 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. granted, 125 S.Ct. 685
(U.S. Dec. 10, 2004) (No. 04-340). Even if the Court is tentatively
inclined to grant certiorari in the present case on the Eleventh
Amendment issue, the Respondent respectfully requests that it hold
this case until its resolution in San Remo, and then deny certiorari
in the present case if the decision in San Remo supports the
Commonwealth’s argument herein.

20

4. Rooker-Feldman—The District Court also held that it
lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
concluding that “the federal claims asserted by DLX are
identical to the claims adjudicated in state court,” and
recognizing that to assert its jurisdiction over the federal
claims would put it in the position of reviewing the state court
decision in violation of 28 U.S.C. §1257(a). (Pet. App. C,
pp. 55a-56a.) See also Anderson v. Charter Township of
Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2001). While the Sixth
Circuit declined to so hold because of its assumption that the
state court adjudication was limited to the state doctrine of
exhaustion of administrative remedies, the concurring opinion
concluded, and the Commonwealth will maintain, that the
state court decision was firmly founded upon the ripeness
principles laid out in Williamson County, and that the federal
District Court did not have jurisdiction over DLX’s federal
claims.

21

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

S. BRADFORD SMOCK :
Counsel of Record 4

RANDALL G. McDOWELL

Environmental and Public

Protection Cabinet
Office of Legal Services
gi #2 Hudson Hollow
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-2356

TODD E. LEATHERMAN
is ELIZABETH UNGAR NATTER :
Kentucky Office of the ;
Attorney General :
1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 200
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-8204
(502) 696-5389

Counsel for Respondents

Dated February 25, 2005

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386007_1335%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.