The Franchise Memorandum

In Izzy Poco v. Town of Springfield, et al., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125080 (D. Utah Oct. 28, 2011), the court held that Springfield town officials were entitled to qualified immunity for enforcing an ordinance that banned franchises from opening in town. In 2006, Springfield, Utah passed an ordinance banning “formula restaurants” that were “required by contractual or other arrangement to provide any of the following: substantially identical named menu items, packaging, food preparation methods, employee uniforms, interior décor, signage, exterior design, or name as any other restaurant or delicatessen in any other location.” Later, Izzy Poco applied for a business license for a sandwich shop, but when town officials learned it would be a Subway franchise, they refused to issue a license or inspect the premises. Poco sued the town, as well as town council members and other officials who enforced the ordinance, claiming that the local law was unconstitutional. Poco dismissed his claims against the town council members, and the remaining town officials moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they had acted in their official capacities and had qualified immunity.

To overcome qualified immunity, Poco had to show that the town officials violated clearly established law. Citing one Eleventh Circuit case overturning the enforcement of a similar local law, Poco argued that the Springfield ordinance did, in fact, violate the Dormant Commerce Clause and the enforcement of the law therefore violated clearly established law. The court disagreed. “With no Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit cases on point, and only one circuit case explicitly suggesting the ordinance could potentially be unconstitutional,” the court found that the law in this area was not “clearly established” and granted summary judgment to the town officials on qualified immunity grounds.