Skip Navigation
Quik Payday relocated for summary judgment, providing three arguments underneath the inactive Commerce Clause

Quik Payday relocated for summary judgment, providing three arguments underneath the inactive Commerce Clause

Quik Payday relocated for summary judgment, providing three arguments beneath the dormant Commerce Clause: (1) the statute is definitely an impermissible extraterritorial regulation; (2) the statute impermissibly burdens interstate business beneath the balancing test of Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970); and (3) the statute subjects https://badcreditloanshelp.net/payday-loans-tn/copperhill/ Web lending to inconsistent state regulations. Regarding the day that is same Defendants relocated for summary judgment on Quik Payday’s constitutional claims, including its contentions underneath the Due Process Clause that Kansas lacked the ability to modify it and that Kan. Stat. Ann. В§ 16a 1 201 is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. (Quik Payday would not look for summary judgment on these due procedure claims). The events stipulated into the known facts to be viewed because of the region court in determining their motions.

The region court denied Quik Payday’s motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants’ cross motion. It rejected every one of Quik Payday’s three Commerce Clause challenges to your Kansas statute and its particular application to Quik Payday. It rejected the contention that Kansas ended up being wanting to control conduct completely outside its boundaries considering that the Kansas statute is triggered only when there was both solicitation in Kansas and financing to 1 of the residents. Quik Payday, 509 F.Supp.2d at 981. The court cited our choice in Aldens, Inc. v. Ryan, 571 F.2d 1159 (10th Cir.1978), for the idea that “a state’s legislation associated with price and terms on which its residents borrow cash from an away from state creditor isn’t outweighed by the burdens on interstate business. pertaining to Pike balancing” Quik Payday, 509 F.Supp.2d at 979. and also as to national uniformity, the court determined that Quik Payday had not shown that “internet payday financing particularly represents the sort of commerce that will simply be susceptible to nationally consistent standards,” id. at 983; its regulated conduct ended up being aimed particularly at Kansas and didn’t fundamentally implicate other states or their laws. The court additionally joined judgment that is summary Defendants on Quik Payday’s due procedure claims. Id. at 984 85.

Quik Payday appeals the region court’s grant of summary judgment towards the Defendants and also the denial of summary judgment to it self. 1 it generally does not challenge the region court’s due procedure rulings but just those regarding the Commerce Clause.

We review a district court’s choice to give summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts into the light many favorable into the party opposing summary judgment. See Jacklovich v. Simmons, 392 F.3d 420, 425 (10th Cir.2004). We are going to affirm a grant of summary judgment if you have no genuine dilemma of product reality while the prevailing party is eligible to judgment underneath the legislation. See id. at 426; Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Likewise, we conduct de novo post on legal issues, including challenges to your constitutionality of statutes. See Hoffmann Pugh v. Keenan, 338 F.3d 1136, 1138 (10th Cir.2003).

The Dormant Commerce Clause

The Supreme Court “long has recognized that the affirmative grant of authority to Congress to regulate interstate commerce also encompasses an implicit or ‘dormant’ limitation from the authority regarding the States to enact legislation impacting interstate business.” Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324, 326 n. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2491, 105 L.Ed.2d 275 (1989); see Dennis v. Higgins, 498 U.S. 439, 447, 111 S.Ct. 865, 112 L.Ed.2d 969 (1991) (“The Commerce Clause does a lot more than confer energy regarding the government; it’s also a restriction that is substantive permissible state legislation of interstate business.” (interior quote marks omitted)). State statutes may break the inactive limitation in 3 ways: