Lexington H-L Services, Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, No. 18-5851 (6th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

In 2018, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction that had enjoined Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government from enforcing Ordinance 25-2017, which restricts the delivery of “unsolicited written materials” to six enumerated locations and provides for civil penalties for violations. On remand, further proceedings were taken in the district court. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court in concluding that Ordinance 25-2017 constitutes a valid time, place, and manner regulation of speech.

Download PDF
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 19a0074p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LEXINGTON H-L SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, > v. LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee. No. 18-5851 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. No. 5:17-cv-00154—Karen K. Caldwell, Chief District Judge. Decided and Filed: April 17, 2019 Before: CLAY, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit Judges. _________________ COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Jeff Nobles, SMITH NOBLES, Houston, Texas, for Appellant. Keith Moorman, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee. _________________ ORDER _________________ This matter was previously before the Court. See Lexington H-L Servs., Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cty. Gov’t, 879 F.3d 224 (6th Cir. 2018), reh’g denied (Jan. 30, 2018). In our previous opinion and order, dated January 9, 2018, we reversed the district court’s order granting a preliminary injunction that had enjoined Defendant Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (the “City”) from enforcing Ordinance 25-2017, which restricts the delivery of “unsolicited written materials” to six enumerated locations and provides for civil penalties for No. 18-5851 Lexington H-L Servs., Inc. v. Lexington-Fayette Urb Cty Gov’t Page 2 violations. We vacated the injunction and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Id. at 236. Upon remand, further proceedings were taken in the district court, in connection with which both parties expressed their view that a trial proceeding was not necessary or warranted. The district court thereafter entertained cross motions for summary judgment. On July 19, 2018, the district court filed a well-reasoned opinion and order finding that Ordinance 25-2017 constitutes a valid time, place, and manner regulation of speech. (See ECF No. 62.) Accordingly, the district court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff, and entered judgment for the City. (See id.) The district court’s July 19, 2018 opinion and order closely follows the legal analysis and reasoning set out in this Court’s opinion of January 9, 2018. Plaintiff has timely appealed. Plaintiff’s appeal has been referred to a panel of the Court that, upon examination, unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). We have reviewed the record below, including the district court’s July 19, 2018 opinion and order, and conclude that the district court properly addressed, analyzed, and disposed of the issues. We therefore AFFIRM the July 19, 2018 order of the district court. IT IS SO ORDERED. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT __________________________________ Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

Primary Holding

An ordinance, restricting the delivery of “unsolicited written materials” to six enumerated locations and providing for civil penalties for violations, constitutes a valid time, place, and manner regulation of speech.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.