Doctor John's Inc. v. Vill. of Cahokia
| Decision Date | 07 September 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:18-cv-00171-JPG-RJD |
| Parties | DOCTOR JOHN'S INC., Plaintiff, v. VILLAGE OF CAHOKIA, ILLINOIS and CURTIS MCCALL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois |
Doctor John's, Inc.—a retailer that specializes in intimate adult apparel, magazines, novelties, and the like—wants to build a store in the Village of Cahokia, Illinois. But the village council rejected the company's application for a business license, so Doctor John's brought this lawsuit that alleges a number of constitutional violations. The defendants now move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 25.) For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART that motion.
One day in the summer of 2017, Doctor John's leased a storefront in Cahokia, Illinois, where they planned to open a shop that would specialize in a number of adult wares. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17, ECF No. 16.) Some of those goods are relatively tame: lingerie, swimwear, t-shirts, costumes, loungewear, and so on. (Id. at ¶ 13.) But Doctor John's also planned on selling adult wares aimed at "enhancing romance," such as pornographic magazines and DVDs, massage oils and other "adult novelties." (Id. at ¶ 14-16, 25.) Doctor John's operates a number of stores, but they claim that they change the exact mix of items at each store in order to comply with corresponding local rules and zoning regulations. (Id. at ¶ 17.)
After Doctor John's signed the lease, they filed a business license application with Cahokia. (Id. at ¶¶ 18-19.) Months passed, and the city did nothing—despite Doctor John's repeated attempts to have the Village Board put the application on their agenda. (Id. at ¶ 19.) Finally, in December 2017, the Village Clerk of Cahokia sent Doctor John's a letter explaining that the Village would not license the business because the B-1 zoning regulation—which governs the proposed address of the store—would not allow for it. (Id. at ¶¶ 20-21.) The B-1 ordinance principally authorizes:
Any local retail business or service establishment supplying commodities or performing services primarily for residents of the day-to-day basis including groceries, supermarkets, fruit and vegetable stores[,] garden supply stores, drug stores, barber shops, beauty parlors, clothes cleaning and laundry pick-up stores, and self-service laundry.
Two days after Doctor John's received that letter from the Clerk, the Village passed an ordinance aimed at adult businesses. That ordinance places restrictions on businesses with "adult uses," which includes adult bookstores, novelty stores, entertainment facilities, cabarets, and the like. The following three "adult use" categories apply to this case:
(Id. at ¶ 24; ECF No. 1-3, pp. 1-2.) "Specified anatomical areas" include, but are not limited to, "female breast[s]" and "human genitals." (ECF No. 1-3, p. 2.) Finally, the ordinance mandates the following zoning restrictions:
(Id. at p. 3.)
The procedural issues become a bit murky here: even though the Village passed the ordinance after they first denied Doctor Johns's application for a business license, Doctor John's says that the Village also told the company that they were an "Adult Entertaintment Business" and therefore subject to the zoning regulations in the adult uses ordinance. (Am. Compl. ¶ 25-28, ECF No. 16.) Doctor John's then explained to the Village that the ordinance does not apply to them because (1) Doctor John's is a "clothing and accessory store selling items relating to the enhancement of romance" rather than an "Adult Entertainment Business"; and (2) that, if necessary, Doctor John's was willing to tinker with its inventory in order to come into compliance with the ordinance's restrictions—just like they have done with their other stores. (Id.) The Villageallegedly rebuffed Doctor John's explanation without viewing its business plan, proposed business operations, or inventory. (Id. at 26.) So Doctor John's turned and sued the Village and its mayor—Curtis McCall—in this Court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violations of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The defendants now move to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
When reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true all allegations in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). This requirement is satisfied if the complaint (1) describes the claim in sufficient detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests; and (2) plausibly suggests that the plaintiff has a right to relief above a speculative level. Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 555; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., 496 F.3d 773, 776 (7th Cir. 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." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Bell Atl., 550 U.S. at 556). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will...be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
As an initial matter, the complaint in this case is messy and duplicitous. The defendants already filed two motions for a more definite statement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure8(a)(2), and after further briefing in front of the magistrate judge, we arrived at this amended complaint. But the amended complaint is still lacking. The magistrate judge construed the claims in that pleading as follows:
(ECF No. 22, p. 2.) A broader reading of the complaint, however, reveals a cavalcade of theories:
Rather than address each count in turn, the Court will address each alleged constitutional violation in turn. And as described in more detail at the conclusion of this order, Doctor John's must file a second-amended complaint that remedies the issues described herein. See Schur v. L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., 577 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2009) ()
The First Amendment theory is not difficult. While Doctor John's has unnecessarily stretched it amongst many counts in the complaint,...
To continue reading
Request your trial