Reorganized FLI v. Williams Companies, 1f4th1214

In 2005 Farmland sued multiple defendants under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (KRTA), alleging a conspiracy that inflated natural-gas prices and seeking full-consideration damages under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-115 (repealed 2013) and treble damages under § 50-161(b).
The case was removed to federal court, consolidated in an MDL, then returned to the District of Kansas; § 50-115 was repealed in 2013 but Farmland did not amend its complaint to remove the § 50-115 demand.
In 2019 defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the 2013 repeal should be given retroactive effect, extinguishing Farmland’s ability to recover (and thus leaving no viable claim).
The district court denied summary judgment and certified an interlocutory question on whether the repeal of § 50-115 is retroactive under Kansas law; the case reached the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).
The Tenth Circuit held § 50-115 was a remedial provision and its repeal applies retroactively under Kansas law, but that Farmland retained other remedies (notably treble damages) and thus defendants were not entitled to summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was § 50-115 substantive or remedial?	Farmland: repeal changes damages and should be treated as substantive.	Defendants: § 50-115 merely prescribed a remedy, not a cause of action.	Court: § 50-115 is remedial (it sets a measure of compensation, not the right).
Does the repeal of § 50-115 apply retroactively under Kansas law?	Farmland: repeal should apply prospectively to pending cases.	Defendants: repeal is retroactive, extinguishing the full-consideration remedy.	Court: repeal applies retroactively (remedial changes apply retroactively absent contrary intent or vested-rights problem).
Would retroactivity infringe vested rights / due process?	Farmland: retroactive repeal would deprive plaintiffs of an expected remedy and could be unjust.	Defendants: retroactivity does not abolish the substantive cause of action; treble damages remain.	Court: no vested-rights violation — retroactivity here does not abolish the cause of action or all remedies.
Has Farmland preserved alternative remedies (treble damages), so summary judgment is improper?	Farmland: amended complaint invoked § 50-161 and sought "other and further relief," preserving treble damages.	Defendants: Farmland failed to amend after repeal and cannot now seek treble damages; summary judgment warranted.	Court: complaint sufficiently preserved treble-damages remedy; summary judgment denied.

Jones v. Garrett, 386 P.2d 194 (Kan. 1963) (distinguishing changes in remedy/procedure from changes in substantive rights)
Foster v. Humburg, 299 P.2d 46 (Kan. 1956) (damage is part of remedy, not the cause of action)
Kleibrink v. Mo.-Kan.-Tex. R.R. Co., 581 P.2d 372 (Kan. 1978) (statutory limits on wrongful-death recoveries are substantive and generally prospective)
Owen Lumber Co. v. Chartrand, 73 P.3d 753 (Kan. 2003) (remedial statutes may be applied retrospectively unless vested rights are affected)
Brennan v. Kan. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 264 P.3d 102 (Kan. 2011) (framework for evaluating whether retroactive remedial changes impair vested rights)
Norris v. Kan. Emp. Sec. Bd. of Review, 367 P.3d 1252 (Kan. 2016) (procedural changes applied retroactively can nonetheless be barred where they effectively extinguish pending claims)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (federal retroactivity principles; relied on for comparison but held not controlling for Kansas-law analysis)