Coles v. City of Jacksonville
| Decision Date | 07 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:15-cv-1521-J-34PDB |
| Parties | LAVERANUES COLES and TROUBLE LIVIN LIFE LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 53, Coles' Motion), filed by Laveranues Coles and his associated business entity, Trouble Livin Life LLC (collectively "Coles") on May 1, 2017, and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50, City's Motion), also filed on May 1, 2017. This action arises from the City of Jacksonville's (City) denials of various zoning exception applications submitted by Coles in his effort to open a dancing entertainment establishment (DEE) which serves alcohol (otherwise known as a "bikini bar"). Coles asserts that the City's denials of his applications violated the First Amendment protections of free speech and expression. See generally Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief and Demand for Jury Trial, Doc. 1; Complaint.
In Coles' Motion, Coles, on behalf of himself and Trouble Livin Life, LLC, seeks entry of an order granting partial summary judgment against the City finding that the City's "denial of Plaintiffs' zoning applications lacked competent substantial evidence and deprived Plaintiffs['] of their due process rights . . . ." See Coles' Motion at 1.1 The City opposes Coles' Motion. See Defendant's Response to Coles' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. 58, City's Response), filed May 22, 2017. Additionally, in the City's Motion, the City seeks entry of judgment as a matter of law on all claims raised in Coles' Complaint. See City's Motion at 1.2 Coles opposes the City's Motion. See Coles' Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 57, Coles' Response), filed May 18, 2017.3 As such, both Coles' Motion and the City's Motion are ripe for review.
Under Rule 56, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule(s)), "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(a). The record to be considered on a motion for summary judgment may include "depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials." Rule 56(c)(1)(A).4 An issue is genuine when the evidence is such that areasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmovant. See Mize v. Jefferson City Bd. of Educ., 93 F.3d 739, 742 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Hairston v. Gainesville Sun Publ'g Co., 9 F.3d 913, 919 (11th Cir. 1993)). "[A] mere scintilla of evidence in support of the non-moving party's position is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Kesinger ex rel. Estate of Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed.2d 202 (1986)).
The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating to the court, by reference to the record, that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be determined at trial. See Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir. 1991). "When a moving party has discharged its burden, the non-moving party must then go beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc., 64 F.3d 590, 593-94 (11th Cir. 1995) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Substantive law determines the materiality of facts, and "[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S. Ct. at 2510. In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, acourt "must view all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment." Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995) (citing Dibrell Bros. Int'l, S.A. v. Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro, 38 F.3d 1571, 1578 (11th Cir. 1994)). Notably, the instant action is before the Court on cross-motions seeking summary judgment. "The principles governing summary judgment do not change when the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment." T-Mobile S. LLC v. City of Jacksonville, Fla., 564 F.Supp.2d 1337, 1340 (M.D.Fla.2008). Instead, applying the same principles, "the Court must determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on the undisputed facts." Id.
This controversy arises out of the City's failure to grant several requests for zoning exceptions, waivers, and deviations (collectively the Zoning Exceptions) that would allow Coles, and his associated company, Trouble Livin Life, LLC, to open and maintain an establishment that provides patrons with non-nude dancing entertainment along with alcohol in Jacksonville, Florida. Coles asserts that the City's failure to grant the requested Zoning Exceptions violates his First Amendment Rights and constituted an unlawful restraint on free speech and expression.
In the course of seeking to open his entertainment establishment, Coles entered into a lease with HI LLC, the owner of property located at 5800 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida ("the Property"). Complaint at ¶ 11. The structure on the Property was developedin 1967 as a night club and restaurant and has been used in that manner over the years. See Doc. 53-9 at 2 (Department Report on Application for DEE Serving Alcohol); Doc. 53-10 at 1-2 (); Doc. 53-11 at 1 (Department Report on Application for Reduced Parking Deviation).6 In preparing to open a bikini bar on the Property, Coles "spent over $500,000 to redevelop the property, renovate the building and eliminate the [building] code violations and in addition, spent over $300,000 purchasing . . . liquor licenses as required by law." Complaint at ¶ 24. He also applied for and obtained a license from the Jacksonville Sherriff's Office to operate a DEE. Doc. 53-18 (License Application for Adult Entertaining/Dancing Entertaining Establishment); Doc. 53-5 (DEE premises license).7 Coles opened his venue in early 2014, Complaint at ¶ 25, allegedly operating as a restaurant. See Department Report on Application for DEE Serving Alcohol at 2; Department Report on Application for Distance Waiver for Liquor License Locations at 2;Department Report on Application for Reduced Parking Deviation at 1; August 20, 2015 Commission Meeting Transcript at 8.8
At the time Coles rented the Property, it was zoned in the Commercial Community/General-2 (CCG-2) area, where DEEs not serving alcohol are permitted to operate as a matter of right. See Jacksonville, Florida Ordinance Code (the Code), § 656.313(a)(V)(b)(25); Department Report on Application for DEE Serving Alcohol at 1; Department Report on Application for Distance Waiver for Liquor License Locations at 1; Department Report on Application for Reduced Parking Deviation at 1. Therefore, Coles could have operated the Property as a DEE. However, in order to lawfully serve alcohol at his DEE, the Code required Coles to obtain a zoning exception from the City. Additionally, due to the location of the Property, and Coles' desire to make the most of its square footage, he needed to obtain at least two other exceptions/waivers. Hence, in late 2013 and early 2014, Coles requested three different zoning exceptions from the City Planning Commission (Commission), which he believed collectively would have allowed him to lawfully operate a bikini bar on the Property.
First, Coles sought to obtain a zoning exception to operate a DEE serving alcohol. See Application for Zoning Exception to Operate DEE Serving Alcohol; see also Code §656.313(A)(V)(c)(11) (). Additionally, because he wished to use the entire square footage of the structure on the Property for a DEE, bar, and restaurant, Coles sought an administrative deviation allowing him to have fewer parking spaces at the Property than the Code otherwise required. See Doc. 53-8 (Application for Reduced Parking Deviation); see also Code § 656.604 (). Finally, because the Property was located closer to two nearby churches than otherwise permitted by the zoning code, Coles sought a waiver of the minimum distance requirements for a liquor license location. See Doc. 53-7 (Application for Distance Waiver for Liquor License Location); see also Code § 656.805 (). All told, if Coles obtained these three different zoning exceptions/waivers/deviations, he believed he would be able to legally operate the bikini bar as he desired at the Property.
In order to obtain a zoning exception or variance, an applicant must first submit an application to the City Planning and Development Department (Planning and Development Department). See Code §§ 656.131(a), 656.132(a), 656.133(a). The Planning and Development Department then issues an advisory report to the City Planning Commission (Commission) regarding the application. Id. at §§ 656.131(b), 656.132(b), 656.133(a). The Commission is then responsible for "holding a public hearing with respect to each application for a zoning exception to the Zoning Code," and rendering decision. Id. An applicant may appeal a Commission decision to the City Council through its Land Use Zoning Committee (LUZ Committee). Id. at §§ 656.140, 656.144. The LUZ Committee, acting on behalf of the City Council, may "affirm, reverse, or modify each...
To continue reading
Request your trial