Lebamoff Enterprises, Inc. v. Snow

757 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Ind. 2010) · United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division · December 6, 2010 · No. No. 1:09-cv-744-JMS-TAB

Summary

The court granted summary judgment to the Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission in a challenge to Indiana's requirement that wine dealers make off-premises deliveries through the dealer or a permitted employee. The plaintiffs argued that the delivery requirement violated the Commerce Clause and was preempted by federal law. The court concluded that the requirement was facially neutral and analyzed it under the Pike balancing test, consistent with Indiana's three-tier alcohol distribution system.

Holdings

  1. Indiana Code section 7.1-3-15-3(d) is facially neutral because it regulates Indiana wine dealers without distinguishing between in-state and out-of-state wine, wineries, or carriers; therefore, strict scrutiny does not apply.
  2. Indiana Code section 7.1-3-15-3(d) survives Pike balancing because it regulates evenhandedly, advances the legitimate and powerful local interest of reducing minors' access to alcohol, and plaintiffs failed to present quantifiable evidence that the burden on interstate commerce was clearly excessive in relation to that interest.
  3. Indiana Code section 7.1-3-15-3(d) is not preempted under 49 U.S.C. section 14501(c)(1) and Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association because it regulates wine dealers rather than motor carriers and does not regulate a carrier's price, route, or service.
  4. Indiana Code section 7.1-3-15-3(d) is not conflict-preempted because plaintiffs failed to show that compliance with state and federal law is impossible or that the Indiana requirement stands as an obstacle to Congress's objectives.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Indiana Code section 7.1-3-15-3(d), which requires Indiana wine dealers to make off-premises deliveries through the permit holder or a permitted employee in a face-to-face transaction, violates the dormant Commerce Clause.
  2. Whether Indiana Code section 7.1-3-15-3(d) is preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, 49 U.S.C. section 14501(c)(1), under direct or conflict-preemption principles.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (23)

  • Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986)(followed)
  • Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529 (7th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Schacht v. Wis. Dep't of Corrections, 175 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1999)(followed)
  • Franklin v. City of Evanston, 384 F.3d 838 (7th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970)(followed)
  • Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005)(followed)
  • Baude v. Heath, 538 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2008)(followed)
  • Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333 (1977)(followed)
  • City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…