WCI, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Public Safety

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 19a0271n.06
Case No. 18-3962
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
WCI, INC., ) May 24, 2019
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
SAFETY; OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL ) OHIO
COMMISSION, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
BEFORE: BOGGS, BATCHELDER, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. WCI, Inc., (“WCI”), an Ohio strip-club owner that holds
an Ohio Liquor License, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Ohio Liquor
Control Commission (“Commission”) and the Ohio Department of Public Safety (“Department”)
from imposing and enforcing a fine against WCI. This fine arose as a result of nude dancing that
occurred at WCI’s establishment in contravention of Ohio law and liquor-control regulations.
WCI argues that the fine violates the United States Constitution because it retaliated against WCI’s
expressive speech, because Ohio offered inadequate procedural safeguards, because WCI was
discriminated against for operating a strip club, and because the fine is excessive.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed WCI’s lawsuit
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Although the district court was correct
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
in dismissing WCI’s free speech and equal protection claims, it erred in dismissing WCI’s due-
process and Eighth Amendment excessive-fine claims, which merit further analysis. Therefore,
we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the decision of the district court and REMAND the
remaining counts of the complaint for further consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are not in dispute.
WCI operates a strip club known as “Cheeks” in West Carrollton, Ohio. On March 8,
2014, undercover agents of the Department visited Cheeks. A female dancer offered an agent a
private lap dance. The agent accepted, and the dancer took him into a private room, where she
proceeded to give him a fully nude lap dance. Subsequently, the dancer was cited for a violation
of Ohio Revised Code § 2907.40(C)(2), which prohibits nude dancers from physically touching
patrons. She later pled no contest to an amended charge of disorderly conduct, resulting in a
conviction and a sentence of thirty days in jail, one-year reporting probation, and $1,000 in fines
and costs. WCI was cited for, and found in violation of, Ohio Administrative Code § 4301:1-1-52
(“Rule 52”), which prohibits nude dancing at an establishment with a liquor license.
On August 20, 2015, the Commission issued an order revoking WCI’s liquor license, but
gave WCI the option to pay a $25,000 fine in lieu of revocation. WCI moved for reconsideration
of the order, which motion the Commission denied. WCI unsuccessfully appealed the order within
the Ohio court system. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and the Ohio Court of
Appeals both affirmed the order, and the Supreme Court of Ohio declined to grant plenary review.
WCI filed this suit in the district court, alleging constitutional violations and seeking
declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commission and the Department. In its complaint,
WCI claimed to have preserved its right to plenary adjudication of these issues in federal court
2
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
pursuant to England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (1964). The
defendants did not answer the complaint or specifically deny the England reservation claim, but
instead moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.
For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that WCI properly invoked its
England reservation, but we recognize that this question might warrant further analysis on remand.
See id. at 418–19 (“But we see no reason why a party, after unreservedly litigating his federal
claims in the state courts although not required to do so, should be allowed to ignore the adverse
state decision and start all over again in the District Court.”); Trafalgar Corp. v. Miami Cty. Bd.
of Comm’rs, 519 F.3d 285, 288 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Furthermore, because [the plaintiff] asserted
federal issues in its complaint at the state court level, it cannot now claim to have reserved its
federal causes of action for subsequent litigation in federal court under . . . England[.]”); see also
Lumbard v. City of Ann Arbor, 913 F.3d 585, 589–90 (6th Cir. 2019) (recognizing England
limitations).
WCI’s federal complaint asserts eight counts based on the Commission’s application of
Rule 52: a First Amendment violation (Count I); an Equal Protection violation (Count II); arbitrary
and capricious action (Count III); an unconstitutional taking (Count IV); inadequate procedural
safeguards (Count V); “improper purpose and . . . discriminatory animus [because the
Commission’s] customs and practices [are] not content-neutral and [are] not unrelated to the
suppression of free speech” (Count VI); unconstitutional “unbridled discretion” that Ohio law
vests in the Commission (Count VII); and an Eighth Amendment excessive-fines violation (Count
VIII). R. 1, PageID 17–19. Of note, in each of these counts, WCI does not assert that Rule 52 is
itself unconstitutional; instead, WCI argues that the constitutional violations arise from the
3
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
Commission’s “unbridled discretion” in executing Rule 52. We review below the district court’s
dismissal of all of these claims.
II. DISCUSSION
Our review of a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
is de novo. Bridge v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 681 F.3d 355, 358 (6th Cir. 2012). For a complaint
to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the plaintiff must “allege[] facts that ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face’ and that, if accepted as true, are sufficient to ‘raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.’” Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 538 (6th Cir. 2012)
(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). We read the complaint “in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,
accept its allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” DirecTV,
Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
A. First Amendment (Counts I and VI)
Rule 52 prohibits holders of Ohio liquor licenses from engaging in or allowing employees
or agents of the holder to engage in certain activities, including “[a]ppear[ing] in a state of nudity,”
“[e]ngag[ing] in sexual activity,” and “[c]omit[ting] public indecency.” Ohio Administrative Code
§ 4301:1-1-52(B)(2)–(4). As noted, WCI does not contest the constitutionality of Rule 52 itself
and instead argues that the “unbridled discretion” of the Commission in enforcing Rule 52
“manifests an improper purpose and evinces a discriminatory animus” which “abridges and
restrains [WCI’s] right to free expression.” R.1, PageID 17–19. To prove this claim, which is
essentially a claim of retaliation against WCI for its protected speech, WCI must show: “(1) the
4
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the
plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct;
and (3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff's protected conduct.” Top
Flight Entm’t, Ltd. v. Schuette, 729 F.3d 623, 631 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Wurzelbacher v. Jones-
Kelley, 675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2012)).
The first question, then, is whether WCI engaged in “constitutionally protected conduct.”
Id. WCI, in its appellate brief, slightly alters this standard to assert that it must show it engaged in
“constitutionally protected speech.” Appellant Br. at 12. This subtle but crucial distinction goes
to the heart of the matter. Although nude dancing “falls only within the outer ambit of the First
Amendment’s protection,” City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 289 (2000), we would
nonetheless treat it as protected speech. However, here, WCI was not sanctioned for engaging in
nude dancing, but for serving alcohol while also allowing individuals to engage in nude dancing
on the same premises. Thus, the issue is not whether nude dancing is constitutionally protected,
but whether the service of alcohol in the presence of nude dancing is constitutionally protected. It
is not.
This court has already determined that “Rule 52 is a constitutional, content-neutral
regulation of the undesirable secondary effects . . . associated with nude dancing in an environment
serving alcohol.” J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. Dragani, 538 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2008). Thus, although
WCI argues that it is not challenging Rule 52 itself but only the enforcement of Rule 52 by the
Commission, WCI cannot succeed. Under J.L. Spoons, the prohibition of Rule 52 on the
combination of alcohol service with nude dancing is constitutional. Therefore, WCI’s violation of
this rule by serving alcohol was not constitutionally protected conduct. Even if WCI could prove
all of its factual allegations, it cannot show First Amendment protection for its conduct and
5
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
therefore cannot show unconstitutional retaliation. Thus, WCI’s First Amendment claims must
fail, and we AFFIRM the district court in dismissing Counts I and VI.
B. Equal Protection (Count II)
In Count II, WCI alleges that the “continued exercise of unbridled discretion in the
imposition of penalties on ‘Gentlemen’s Clubs,’ . . . denies equal protection of the law and allows
for arbitrary, oppressive, and discriminatorily based sanctions.” R.1, PageID 17. “The threshold
element of an equal protection claim is disparate treatment; once disparate treatment is shown, the
equal protection analysis to be applied is determined by the classification used by government
decision-makers.” Dixon v. Univ. of Toledo, 702 F.3d 269, 278 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Scarbrough v. Morgan Cty. Bd. of Educ., 470 F.3d 250, 260 (6th Cir. 2006)).
Only four paragraphs in WCI’s complaint could be construed as making the necessary
allegations to clear the threshold of alleging disparate treatment. In the introductory statement of
the complaint, WCI states:
The Ohio Liquor Control Commission, in dealing with the administration of alleged
violations of the state liquor laws allegedly committed within the confines of
“Gentlemen’s Clubs,” has a custom and practice of imposing enormous and
disproportionate fines, or, in the alternative, calling for the revocation of an
applicable permit holder’s liquor permit, thus reflecting a discriminatory animus
which is content based, violates an affected permit holder’s constitutional rights to
due process and equal protection under law, and manifests a violation of the permit
holder’s First Amendment rights.
R. 1, PageID 1. Additionally, paragraphs 55–56 of the complaint state:
55. It is the custom and practice of the Liquor Control Commission to consistently
impose extraordinarily high financial sanctions, in lieu of the threat of revocation,
on virtually all matters brought before the Commission that involve alleged
violations of Rule 52, involving “Gentlemen’s Clubs.”
56. The conduct of the Liquor Control Commission, in imposing the sanctions on
WCI described above ($25,000 or revocation), is an example of the Commission’s
custom and practice of consistently imposing extraordinarily high financial
sanctions, in lieu of the threat of revocation, on virtually all matters brought before
6
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
the Commission that involve alleged violations of Rule 52, involving “Gentlemen’s
Clubs.”
Id. at PageID 14. Finally, paragraph 70 states:
COUNT II
70. The continued exercise of unbridled discretion in the imposition of penalties on
“Gentlemen’s Clubs,” including Plaintiff, brought before the Commission for
alleged violations of Rule 52 violates the rights guaranteed Plaintiffs by the United
States Constitution, on its face and as applied, in that it denies equal protection of
the law and allows for arbitrary, oppressive, and discriminatorily based sanctions,
which unreasonably requires the Plaintiff to submit to controls not imposed on other
commercial permit holders.
Id. at PageID 17.
These paragraphs are insufficient under the Iqbal standard to allege disparate treatment.
Iqbal calls for dismissal of “pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth.” 556 U.S. at 679. In the equal protection context, a
“[c]omplaint [that] fails to make a plausible allegation that similarly situated organizations and
individuals . . . have not been subject to the same alleged treatment by Defendants” has not met
the Iqbal standard. Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 379 (6th Cir.
2011). Where “[t]he allegations contained in the . . . [c]omplaint as to disparate treatment amount
to conclusory and unadorned assertions that, consequently, are not well-pleaded,” they are “not
entitled to a presumption of truth at this stage in the litigation.” Id.
Here, WCI’s allegations of an equal-protection violation can only be fairly read as
“conclusory and unadorned assertions.” WCI argues that its reference to “other commercial permit
holders who are treated differently” suffices to constitute a well-pleaded factual allegation.
Appellant Br. at 13–14. However, the Commission’s disparate treatment of WCI vis-à-vis other
commercial permit holders is a required element of WCI’s claim. “[A] formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do . . . [and] courts ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal
7
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
conclusion couched as a factual allegation.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v.
Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). The district court noted that WCI “has not identified who the
other commercial permit holders are who are treated differently.” R. 9, PageID 103. WCI argues
on appeal that “[t]here is no requirement that, in its complaint, WCI has to name specifically the
identities of the ‘other commercial permit holders’ included in the complaint.” Appellant Br. at
14. WCI is correct that it need not allege specific granular details of the Commission’s alleged
disparate treatment of strip clubs to prevail, but beyond asserting a required legal element of its
claim “couched as a factual assertion,” WCI has made no plausible factual allegations. There is
no allegation as to the class or type of commercial permit holders or how they were treated
differently. Because the district court was not required to accept as true WCI’s legal conclusions,
and the facts as WCI has alleged them do not support WCI’s claims, it was not error to dismiss
this count.
Further, even if WCI had made sufficient factual allegations to support a showing of
disparate treatment, its claim would nonetheless fail. Once a plaintiff shows disparate treatment,
the next step of equal protection analysis is determining which level of scrutiny to apply. If the
government decision-maker neither impaired a fundamental right nor discriminated against a
suspect or semi-suspect class, the appropriate analysis of the government action is rational-basis
review. Ondo v. City of Cleveland, 795 F.3d 597, 608 (6th Cir. 2015). As noted above, because
nude dancing on the same premises that serves alcohol is not protected speech under the First
Amendment, but regulable conduct, this case presents no allegation of impairment of a
fundamental right nor discrimination against a suspect or semi-suspect class. Therefore, rational-
basis review is appropriate here.
8
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
Under rational basis review, “the burden is on the challenger to show that the government's
action is not rationally related to any legitimate public interest.” Id. We will not invalidate a law
or regulation if it is rationally related to a legitimate purpose. Liberty Coins, LLC v. Goodman,
748 F.3d 682, 694 (6th Cir. 2014). “There is a strong presumption of constitutionality and the
regulation will be upheld so long as its goal is permissible and the means by which it is designed
to achieve that goal are rational.” Id. To invalidate a law under rational basis review, the court
would have to conclude that “government action . . . ‘is so unrelated to the achievement of any
combination of legitimate purposes . . . that the government’s actions were irrational.’” Michael v.
Ghee, 498 F.3d 372, 379 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Club Italia Soccer & Sports Org., Inc. v. Charter
Twp. of Shelby, 470 F.3d 286, 298 (6th Cir. 2006)). Additionally, under rational-basis review, the
state’s actions are “presumptively valid and ‘may be based on rational speculation unsupported by
evidence or empirical data.’” Liberty Coins, 748 F.3d at 694 (quoting TriHealth, Inc. v. Bd. of
Comm’rs, 430 F.3d 783, 790 (6th Cir. 2005)).
WCI asserted in its complaint that the Commission imposed penalties against WCI based
on “discriminatory animus.” R. 1, PageID 1. This argument implies that the Commission has an
illicit intent in regulating WCI: that of restricting or banning WCI’s expressive speech. However,
as we have already determined, it is not WCI’s speech (nude dancing) that is being restricted here,
but the sale of alcohol on premises that also features nude dancing. Ohio “enjoy[s] broad power
under § 2 of the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the . . . use of intoxicating liquor within [its]
borders.” Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691, 712 (1984). Further, Ohio has wide
authority to regulate the “undesirable secondary effects . . . associated with nude dancing in an
environment serving alcohol.” J.L. Spoons, 538 F.3d at 382. This is not a case where WCI’s
marginally protected right to free expression via nude dancing is being threatened, but rather a
9
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
case where WCI’s unprotected privilege of serving alcohol while engaging in nude dance is being
regulated. Given Ohio’s interests in these areas, even if WCI properly alleged—and even if WCI
could prove—that it was being treated with “discriminatory animus,” it would not show that the
Commission lacked a rational basis for its actions. Therefore, we AFFIRM the decision of the
district court in dismissing WCI’s equal-protection claim.
C. Due Process (Counts III, IV, V, and VII)
WCI also argues that the “unbridled discretion” of the Commission to enforce Rule 52 is
arbitrary and capricious, constitutes an unconstitutional taking, lacks sufficient procedural
safeguards, and grants “unbridled discretion” to the Commission, respectively. R. 1, PageID 17–
18. The district court dismissed these counts on the grounds that an Ohio liquor license does not
create any property interest for the licensee. R. 9, PageID 103–104. The district court cited Ohio
case law for the proposition that a liquor license holder has no property interest in the liquor
license. Here, we must depart from the logic of the district court. It is true that Ohio courts have
held that liquor licenses do not convey any property interest. However, “we emphasize that we do
not rely on the labels that a state gives to the interests it has created.” Brookpark Entm’t, Inc. v.
Taft, 951 F.2d 710, 715 (6th Cir. 1991). Further, our case law unequivocally shows that the “holder
of an Ohio liquor license has a property interest protected under the Due Process Clause.” Id. at
716.
To prevail on a claimed due-process violation, plaintiffs must show three elements: “(1)
that they have a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause; (2) that they were deprived
of this property interest; and (3) that the state did not afford them adequate pre-deprivation
procedural rights.” Cahoo v. SAS Analytics Inc., 912 F.3d 887, 900 (6th Cir. 2019). Because WCI
has a property interest in its liquor license, it has properly alleged the first element, contrary to the
10
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
decision of the district court. Further, there is no dispute between the parties that WCI was required
to either pay a fine or lose its liquor license. Thus, the deprivation itself is properly alleged. The
only outstanding element in this litigation is whether Ohio provided WCI with sufficient
procedural protections.
In determining whether there has been adequate procedure, the Supreme Court has given
us three factors to examine:
First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk
of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the
probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally,
the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and
administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement
would entail.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976).
The first factor—the private interest at stake—is clear: WCI’s business will be severely
curtailed, possibly even ruined, if it loses its liquor license. The latter two factors, however,
warrant further investigation. The district court did not examine these issues, and neither party
has adequately briefed them for this court to come to a resolution. “It is the general rule that a
federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below.” Jackson v. City of
Cleveland, Nos. 17-3840, 17-3843, 2019 WL 2171462, at *10 (6th Cir. May 20, 2019) (quoting
Lindsay v. Yates, 498 F.3d 434, 441 (6th Cir. 2007)). Therefore, we REVERSE AND REMAND
the decision of the district court regarding WCI’s due process claims.
On remand, the district court is instructed that WCI has a property interest in its Ohio liquor
license. The district court must consider, under the framework of Mathews, whether Ohio provided
sufficient procedural protection to satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause.
11
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
D. Eighth Amendment (Count VIII)
Finally, we consider WCI’s claims regarding Eighth Amendment excessive fine violations.
In its complaint, WCI maintains that “the penalties imposed by Defendants are grossly
disproportionate and allow[] the imposition of an excessive fine, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment.” R. 1, PageID 19.
The question before us is whether the civil penalties that were imposed by the Commission
against WCI constitute an excessive fine. The district court applied Ohio state courts’
interpretation of the Eighth Amendment for the proposition that this federal constitutional
guarantee was simply not applicable to WCI, and in so doing, never examined whether the
penalties were constitutionally excessive. The district court relied uncritically upon a statement of
the Ohio Court of Appeals that “[s]uspension and revocation of state-issued permits generally are
remedial measures and not ‘punishment’ subject to the protections of the Eighth Amendment.”
WCI, Inc. v. Ohio State Liquor Control Comm’n, 68 N.E.3d 250, 256 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
(quoting Four Horsemen, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Comm’n, No. 97APE05-612, 1997 WL 578774, at
*1 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 16, 1997)). However, whether a fine against the holder of a liquor license
is limited by the protections of the Eighth Amendment is an unsettled area of law. Although
decisions of state courts interpreting the Federal Constitution may be persuasive, they are not
binding upon federal courts. See Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 347–48 (1816).
Under Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682, 687 (2019), the Eighth Amendment’s protections
against excessive fines are equally applicable against state governments as against the federal
government. Additionally, in the federal constitutional regime, “[t]he Eighth Amendment protects
against excessive civil fines, including forfeitures.” Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 103
(1997). The question is not whether a fine is criminal or civil, but whether the fine is intended as
12
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
punishment. If the fine is intended as a punishment—even if only intended partially as a
punishment, and partially for other reasons—the protections of the Eighth Amendment apply.
“[S]anctions frequently serve more than one purpose. We need not exclude the possibility that a
forfeiture serves remedial purposes to conclude that it is subject to the limitations of the Excessive
Fines Clause. We, however, must determine that it can only be explained as serving in part to
punish.” Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 610 (1993).
To determine if the Eighth Amendment applies to the fine that the Commission levied
against WCI, we must first consider, as a threshold matter, whether the fines are punitive or
remedial in nature. If the fines are punitive and therefore the Eighth Amendment applies, we must
then determine the merits of the question; that is, whether the fine was actually excessive.
To answer the first question—whether a fine is remedial or punitive—we ask whether the
fine “constitutes ‘payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.’” Id. at 622 (quoting
Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 265 (1989)). Here,
Appellees’ arguments on appeal amount to a concession of this question. Appellees assert that
“WCI just does not like the penalty imposed for their recurring misconduct.” Appellee Br. at 16.
It cannot reasonably be argued that a “penalty for . . . misconduct” is distinguishable from
“punishment for some offense.” Therefore, we hold that the fine levied against WCI was punitive
in nature and that the Eighth Amendment applies. However, the merits of the Eighth Amendment
claim were neither decided below nor briefed before us. Once again, where this issue was not
resolved below, we will not pass upon it for the first time here. Jackson, 2019 WL 2171462, at
*10. Thus, as to the question of whether the Commission’s fines were excessive in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, we REVERSE AND REMAND.
13
Case No. 18-3962, WCI v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART
AND REVERSED IN PART. We AFFIRM the district court’s decision as to Counts I, II, and
VI of WCI’s complaint. We REVERSE AND REMAND the district court’s decision as to Counts
III, IV, V, VII, and VIII, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
14