## Facts

- The Loesel family owned property in Frankenmuth Township and entered a conditional agreement to sell it to Wal-Mart for about $4 million to build a supercenter.
- After learning of the proposed development, the City of Frankenmuth adopted a zoning ordinance capping new commercial building size in the affected area at 65,000 square feet, which would prevent the planned Wal-Mart.
- Wal-Mart terminated the purchase agreement following enactment of the ordinance.
- The Loesels claimed the ordinance caused a substantial loss in value and prevented a comparable sale.
- The Loesels sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a “class-of-one” Equal Protection violation on two theories: (1) differential treatment from similarly situated properties without a rational basis, and (2) enactment driven by animus toward the Loesels.
- After trial, a jury returned a general verdict for the Loesels and awarded about $3.6 million; the district court denied the City’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find that the City intentionally treated the Loesels differently from others similarly situated and without a rational basis, supporting a class-of-one Equal Protection claim.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find the ordinance was motivated by personal animus toward the Loesel family, supporting an animus-based class-of-one claim.
3. Whether the district court erred by denying judgment as a matter of law and allowing a general verdict to stand where one submitted theory lacked evidentiary support.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit held there was sufficient evidence to submit the similarly situated/rational-basis theory to the jury and to deny judgment as a matter of law on that theory.
- The Sixth Circuit held there was insufficient evidence of animus directed at the Loesels as individuals; the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the animus theory.
- Because the jury returned a general verdict that may have rested on the invalid animus theory, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial limited to the surviving theory.

## Legal Principles

- A class-of-one Equal Protection claim requires proof that the plaintiff was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there was no rational basis for the differential treatment.
- The “similarly situated” requirement in class-of-one cases is demanding; comparators must be similar in all material respects.
- Under rational-basis review, zoning and economic regulations are generally upheld if any reasonably conceivable set of facts could justify them, but a plaintiff may prevail if the selective application or targeting of a facially legitimate policy is found arbitrary.
- An animus-based class-of-one claim requires evidence of personal hostility or individualized ill will toward the plaintiff; generalized opposition to a project or type of development does not suffice.
- When a general jury verdict may rest on multiple theories and at least one is legally invalid or unsupported by evidence, the judgment must be vacated and the case retried on the valid theory.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit allowed the Loesels to proceed on a class-of-one theory based on differential treatment without a rational basis but rejected the animus theory for lack of evidence of personal hostility; because the verdict did not specify which theory the jury accepted, the court vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial confined to the supported theory.


Loesel v. City of Frankenmuth, 692 F.3d 452 (6th Cir. 2012)