Ronald Loesel v. City of Frankenmuth
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17441
6th Cir.2012Background
- Frankenmuth enacted a 65,000 sq ft cap via CL-PUDOZ to block Wal-Mart on Loesels’ 37-acre land, which Wal-Mart then terminated.
- Loesels sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a class‑of‑one equal protection violation; district court denied some claims but allowed a facial challenge to proceed to trial.
- Zoning history: CL-PUD vs B-3 zoning within Frankenmuth’s growth plan; Loesels’ land was designated CL-PUD, targeted for commercial development.
- Wal-Mart signed a purchase agreement for $4 million; it later terminated after the ordinance; Loesels recovered $5,000 escrow, Wal-Mart recovered its deposit.
- Trial resulted in a $3.6 million damages verdict for Loesels; on appeal, court vacated and remanded for a new trial, citing Griffin and related limitations on civil class‑of‑one review.
- Court analysis emphasized the need to compare Loesels’ property to similarly situated properties and noted substantial issues about rational basis and animus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly denied JMOL on class‑of‑one claim | Loesels: no permissible rational basis; disparate treatment of similarly situated properties | City: plausible rational basis; Wortman’s analysis supports classification | Remand for new trial; Griffin/Virtual Maintenance rule applied |
| Whether Loesels’ property is similarly situated to Bavarian Mall/Bronner’s | Yes, adequate similarity to support class‑of‑one claim | No, material zoning/traffic differences negate similarity | Genuine dispute of material fact; JMOL improper on similarity |
| Whether the ordinance lacked a rational basis or was motivated by animus | Defense lacked legitimate, non-animus rationale; evidence of bias | Rational basis supported by site characteristics and planning goals | Animus-based theory should have been JMOL; remand for new trial; rational-basis issue unresolved on final |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (class-of-one requires intentional differential treatment without rational basis)
- TriHealth, Inc. v. Bd. of Comm’rs, Hamilton Cnty., 430 F.3d 783 (6th Cir. 2005) (heavy burden for class‑of‑one under rational basis)
- Jennings v. City of Stillwater, 383 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2004) (skepticism toward class‑of‑one claims in statutory schemes)
- Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673 (6th Cir. 2011) (material differences determine similarly situated inquiries)
- Virtual Maintenance, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc., 11 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 1993) (civil case applying Griffin presumption to general verdicts (remand for new trial))
- Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (1991) (presumption of conviction on factually sufficient theory in criminal trials; limited civil application)
- i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Griffin-like presumptions discussed in civil context by some circuits)