Opinion ID: 171009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Kansas Litigation

Text: The Kansas legislature enacted the Allocable Share Amendment in 2005. Later that same year, Xcaliber filed suit in Kansas district court against the then Kansas attorney general, Phill Kline, in his official capacity (Kansas), asserting that the Amendment violated the Sherman Act and the United States and Kansas constitutions. Xcaliber's complaint was substantively identical to the complaint Plaintiffs had filed in the Oklahoma action, except that Xcaliber did not assert a claim under the Commerce Clause in its Kansas litigation. Like the Oklahoma action, in this Kansas litigation, Xcaliber challenged only the Allocable Share Amendment, and specifically did not challenge either the MSA or the originally enacted Kansas escrow statute. [7] The district court dismissed Xcaliber's free speech and equal protection claims under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), after concluding those causes of action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court later granted Kansas summary judgment, see Fed. R.Civ.P. 56, on the remaining Sherman Act and due process claims. Xcaliber appeals those decisions in appeal No. 06-3061.