Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, C 03-4121-MWB.

• Decision Date: 28 September 2005
• Docket Number: No. C 03-4121-MWB.,C 03-4121-MWB.
• Citation: 389 F.Supp.2d 1096
• Parties: DOCTOR JOHN'S, INC., an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, and Paul Eckert, in his official capacity as City Manager, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

389 F.Supp.2d 1096

DOCTOR JOHN'S, INC., an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, and Paul Eckert, in his official capacity as City Manager, Defendants.

No. C 03-4121-MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

September 28, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Brian Blane Vakulskas, Vakulskas & Hoffmeyer, Sioux City, IA, W. Andrew McCullough, McCullough & Associates, L.L.C., Midvale, UT, for Plaintiff.

Connie E. Anstey, James L. Abshier, City Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, Scott D. Bergthold, Law Office of Scott D. Bergthold, P.L.L.C., Chattanooga, TN, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OCTOBER 2003 AND JANUARY 2004 ORDINANCES

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I.  INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................1100
                      A.  Procedural Background ..................................................1100
                          1.  Claims by Doctor John's ............................................1100
                          2.  The motion for a preliminary injunction ............................1100
                          3.  The cross-motions for summary judgment and the motion to strike ....1101
                          4.  Subsequent amendments and motions ..................................1102
                          5.  Oral arguments .....................................................1102
                      B.  Factual Background .....................................................1102
                          1.  The Doctor John's store in Sioux City ..............................1103
                          2.  Sioux City zoning ordinances and amendments ........................1105
                              a.  Pre-existing ordinances ........................................1105
                              b.  The series of amendments .......................................1106
                                    i.  The "Moratorium" Amendments ..............................1106
                                   ii.  The January 2004 Amendments ..............................1107
                                  iii.  The December 2004 Amendments .............................1111
                 II.  LEGAL ANALYSIS .............................................................1111
                      A.  Standards For Summary Judgment .........................................1111
                      B.  Mootness And Standing ..................................................1112
                          1.  Arguments of the parties ...........................................1112
                          2.  Analysis ...........................................................1113
                      C.  Nature Of The Constitutional Challenges ................................1115
                      D.  The "Combination" Definition Of A "Sex Shop" ...........................1115
                          1.  The provision in question ..........................................1115
                          2.  Arguments of the parties ...........................................1116
                          3.  Analysis ...........................................................1117
                              a.  Applicable law .................................................1117
                              b.  Application of the law .........................................1118
                                    i.  Time, place, and manner regulation .......................1118
                                   ii.  Content neutrality .......................................1118
                                  iii.  Strict scrutiny ..........................................1121
                                   iv.  Intermediate scrutiny ....................................1125
                                    v.  Non-media provisions .....................................1127
                      E.  The Two "Sex Toys" Definitions Of "Sex Shop" ...........................1128
                

                1.  The provisions in question .........................................1128
                          2.  Arguments of the parties ...........................................1128
                          3.  Analysis ...........................................................1128
                      F.  The Motion To Strike ...................................................1129
                III.  CONCLUSION .................................................................1130
                

Several months after this court enjoined enforcement of amendments to city zoning ordinances regulating the location of "adult entertainment businesses" in Sioux City, Iowa — which were passed just in time to bar the plaintiff's new store, a putative "adult entertainment business," from opening — the plaintiff moved for summary judgment to make the preliminary injunction permanent. The plaintiff contends that nothing has changed and that the court should, therefore, confirm that the amended zoning ordinances violate First Amendment guarantees of free speech, leaving the only issue for trial the amount of damages to the plaintiff for the delay in opening its business caused by the unconstitutional amendments to the pertinent ordinances. In response, the defendant city filed its own motion for summary judgment, asserting that another round of amendments has "mooted" the plaintiff's claims and that, in any event, the plaintiff's sale of "sex toys," for which no First Amendment protection is available, would have brought it within the purview of the first round of amended ordinances and would have constitutionally barred it from opening in its chosen location. The court must decide whether either party is entitled to summary judgment or whether this matter will, instead, proceed to trial on issues pertaining to the first round of ordinance amendments.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

1. Claims by Doctor John's

Plaintiff Doctor John's, Inc. (Doctor John's), a putative "adult entertainment business," filed its original Complaint in this action on December 9, 2003, against the City of Sioux City, Iowa (the City), and Paul Eckert, in his official capacity as Sioux City's City Manager, challenging Sioux City's municipal ordinances imposing a moratorium on new "adult entertainment businesses" enacted in October and amended in November 2003. On January 20, 2004, Doctor John's filed an Amended Complaint, and on February 10, 2004, filed a Second Amended Complaint challenging further amendments to Sioux City's zoning ordinances concerning "adult entertainment businesses," enacted in January 2004. In its Second Amended Complaint, Doctor John's alleged that these ordinances violated its right to free expression protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and constituted prior restraints on free expression; failed to allow reasonable alternative means of expression; resulted in a taking of its business property without due process of law; infringed First Amendment freedoms in a manner greater than necessary to further any valid interests of the City; lacked adequate procedural safeguards and failed to provide for prompt judicial review; and denied equal protection. The City denied these claims.

2. The motion for a preliminary injunction

On January 5, 2004, Doctor John's filed a Motion For Preliminary Injunction in which it requested that the court enjoin the City from enforcing the temporary moratorium on adult entertainment businesses enacted in October 2003. However, that moratorium had expired by the time of the evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on February 20, 2004. At the evidentiary hearing, the court allowed Doctor John's to amend orally its Motion For Preliminary Injunction to seek an injunction against enforcement of the amended "adult entertainment business" ordinances enacted at the expiration of the moratorium in January 2004 (the January 2004 Amendments).

In a published ruling, Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 305 F.Supp.2d 1022 (N.D.Iowa 2004), filed February 26, 2004, the court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the City from pursuing, instituting, continuing, or completing any and all enforcement actions pursuant to the municipal code employing the definition of "adult entertainment business" in the January 2004 Amendments, until such time as the preliminary injunction was dissolved or vacated, by this court or a reviewing court. The preliminary injunction has remained in effect until this time.

3. The cross-motions for summary judgment and the motion to strike

Some ten months after the court's preliminary injunction ruling, on December 20, 2004, Doctor John's filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment (docket no. 48) asserting that the January 2004 Amendments are facially invalid, because they violate the free expression guarantees of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Somewhat more specifically, Doctor John's asserts in its supporting brief that the January 2004 Amendments do not withstand either strict or intermediate scrutiny. Consequently, Doctor John's seeks summary judgment granting permanent injunctive and declaratory relief barring enforcement of the January 2004 Amendments and leaving for trial only the issue of the damages that Doctor John's suffered because the opening of its store in Sioux City, Iowa, was delayed by the unconstitutional ordinances.

On February 22, 2005, the City filed its own Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 55) and a combined Brief In Resistance To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment And In Support Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment (docket no. 56). In its own motion and in resistance to the motion by Doctor John's, the City asserts that challenges to the January 2004 Amendments are "mooted," because further amendments repealing the January 2004 Amendments were filed in December 2004 (the December 2004 Amendments); because Doctor John's would have been a "sex shop" under the "sex toys" definitions in the January 2004 Amendments, which did not implicate First Amendment protections, and consequently, Doctor John's could have been lawfully excluded from its chosen location on that basis; and because, if the challenge to the "combination" provision of the January 2004 Amendments involving "adult media" is not...