DC Operating, LLC v. Paxton
| Decision Date | 17 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | EP-22-CV-00010-FM |
| Citation | 586 F.Supp.3d 554 |
| Parties | DC OPERATING, LLC d/b/a Dreams; Nuvia Heidi Medina; and Michelle Corral, Plaintiffs, v. Ken PAXTON, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas; Ed Serna, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission ; Unknown Commissioner of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation; Richard D. Wiles, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas; and Ricardo A. Samaniego, in his Official Capacity as County Judge of El Paso County, Texas, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas |
Eduardo N. Lerma, Sr., Law Offices of Eduardo N. Lerma Sr., El Paso, TX, for Plaintiffs.
John T. Ramsey, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan G. Kercher, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants Attorney General Ken Paxton, Ed Serna.
John Edward Untereker, Ruben Gabriel Duarte, El Paso County Attorney's Office, El Paso, TX, for Defendant Richard D. Wiles.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the court are "State Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to Preliminary Injunction" [ECF No. 9], filed January 18, 2022 by Ed Serna in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission; Ken Paxton, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas; and an unnamed Commissioner of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation in his/her official capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (collectively, "State Defendants"); "Defendants Ricardo A Samaniego's and Richard Wiles’, in Their Official Capacities, Motion in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Request for Injunctive Relief" [ECF No. 10], filed January 18, 2022 by Ricardo A. Samaniego, in his Official Capacity as County Judge of El Paso County, Texas and Richard Wiles, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of El Paso County, Texas (collectively, "County Defendants"); and "Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law and Fact in Support of Merits of Preliminary Injunction" [ECF No. 11], filed January 18, 2022 by DC Operating, LLC; Nuvia Heidi Medina; and Michelle Corral (collectively, "Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from enforcing or implementing Senate Bill 315.1 After due consideration of Plaintiffs’ brief in support of a preliminary injunction, the State and County Defendants’ briefs in opposition, and the testimony received at the hearing held on January 20, 2022, the request for a preliminary injunction is DENIED .
This cause concerns a law recently enacted by the Texas Legislature—Senate Bill 315 ("S.B. 315").2 S.B. 315 is a law "relating to restrictions on the age of persons employed by or allowed on the premises of a sexually oriented business; creating a criminal offense."3 Texas law defines sexually oriented businesses as any:
sex parlor, nude studio, modeling studio, love parlor, adult bookstore, adult movie theater, adult video arcade, adult movie arcade, adult video store, adult motel, or other commercial enterprise the primary business of which is the offering of a service or the selling, renting, or exhibiting of devices or any other items intended to provide sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to the customer.4
S.B. 315 amended various portions of existing Texas laws to effectively raise the minimum legal age for working in a sexually oriented business from 18 to 21. First, Section 5 of S.B. 315 amended Chapter 125 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code to make it a common nuisance to "employ[ ] or enter[ ] into a contract for the performance of work or the provision of a service with an individual younger than 21 years of age for work or services performed at a sexually oriented business as defined by Section 243.002 of the Local Government Code."5 Second, Section 6 of S.B. 315 amended several provisions of Chapter 51 of the Texas Labor Code, which regulates "Employment of Children," to provide that "[a] sexually oriented business may not employ or enter into a contract ... for the performance of work or the provision of a service with an individual younger than 21 years of age."6 A violation of this provision now constitutes a Class A misdemeanor subject to a one-year jail sentence, administrative penalties, or a suit for injunctive relief brought by the attorney general of Texas.7 Finally, Section 8 of S.B. 315 amended Texas Penal Code Section 43.251 by changing its definition of "child" to mean "a person younger than 21 years of age."8 As a result, a person who "employs, authorizes, or induces" someone under the age of 21 to work in or with a sexually oriented business is subject to felony charges.9
S.B. 315 was enacted based on the need to "provide necessary mechanisms to safeguard our communities and children from trafficking and sexual exploitation, which are often harmful secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses."10 Specifically, according to State Defendants, S.B. 315 is designed to reduce trafficking at sexually oriented businesses by raising the minimum age of employment at these establishments from 18 to 21, thereby increasing the life experience and maturity of their employees and making them less vulnerable to trafficking.11 Further, State Defendants contend raising the minimum employment age for sexually oriented businesses from 18 to 21 makes it more difficult for human traffickers to use these establishments for trafficking.12
Plaintiff DC Operating LLC, doing business as Dreams, is a non-alcohol, all-nude, adult cabaret entertainment club in El Paso, Texas.13 Dreams qualifies as a sexually oriented business. Plaintiffs Nuvia Heidi Medina and Michelle Corral are exotic dancers under the age of 21 currently employed by Dreams.14
Plaintiff Nuvia Heidi Medina is a 20-year-old woman employed as an exotic dancer by Dreams for approximately 14 months.15 She received her license to perform in cabaret venues in El Paso, Texas from the El Paso County Sheriff's Department.16 Her license expires in September of 2022.17 Plaintiff Nuvia Heidi Medina earns upwards of $1,000 per night working at Dreams.18 Further, she has never observed a human or sex trafficker on the premises of Dreams.19 Due to S.B. 315, Plaintiff Nuvia Heidi Medina is afraid of losing her job as it gives her the freedom to express herself through dancing.20
Plaintiff Michelle Corral is a 19-year-old woman employed as an exotic dancer by Dreams for approximately 12 months.21 Her license to perform in cabaret venues in El Paso, Texas expires in February of 2022.22 She has never observed a human or sex trafficker on the premises of Dreams.23 Plaintiff Michelle Corral testified that dancing is not difficult for her—she listens to the beat of the music playing and dances to it.24
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of S.B. 315, alleging S.B. 315's amendments transgress the United States Constitution's First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and association, Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause, and the Texas Constitution's equivalent provisions.25 Further, Plaintiffs contend S.B. 315 renders the Texas statutes it amended fatally vague and overbroad.26 Accordingly, Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction against enforcement of S.B. 315 by Defendants.27
General of Texas.28 As such, he is specifically authorized to enforce Chapter 125 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and Chapter 51 of the Texas Labor Code.29 Defendant Ed Serna is the Executive Director of the Texas Workforce Commission ("Commission").30 He is charged with the agency's day-to-day operations, including implementing policies set by the Commission and enforcing the Labor Code.31 Defendant Unnamed Commissioner of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation issues licenses.32 Defendant Ricardo A. Samaniego is an El Paso County Judge.33 Lastly, Defendant Richard D. Wiles is the El Paso County Sheriff.34 Sheriff Wiles is charged with issuing exotic dancers’ licenses to perform in cabaret venues in El Paso County, Texas, and enforcing the Texas Penal Code.35 Both State and County Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction as they contend Plaintiffs cannot establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims; Plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable harm; and the public interest and potential harm to Defendants weight against granting Plaintiffs’ request.36
Subsequently, Defendant Ricardo A. Samaniego and Defendant Unnamed Commissioner of the Texas Department of the Licensing and Regulation were dismissed as parties in this cause by the court as Plaintiffs conceded that neither played a role in the enforcement of the statute at issue.37
On December 13, 2021, Plaintiffs filed "Plaintiffs’ Original Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act" in state court alleging S.B. 315 violates both the Texas Constitution and United States Constitution.38 Additionally, Plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order ("TRO"), preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against enforcement of S.B. 315.39 Plaintiffs then filed their "First Amended Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act" on December 19, 2021 raising the identical allegations and requesting the identical relief.40 On December 24, 2021, the state court issued a TRO enjoining Defendants from enforcing S.B. 315 until January 7, 2022.41 Further, the state court set a hearing for January 7, 2022 to determine whether the TRO should be converted to a preliminary injunction pending a full trial on the merits.42 On January 4, 2022, Defendants removed this matter to federal court.43 Due to the recency of removal, this court extended the TRO...
To continue reading
Request your trial