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

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
Citation438 F.Supp.2d 1005
Docket NumberNo. C 03-4121 MWB.,C 03-4121 MWB.
PartiesDOCTOR JOHN'S, INC., an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, Defendant.
Decision Date21 July 2006

Brian Blane Vakulskas, Vakulskas & Hoffmeyer, Sioux City, IA, Steven H. Swander, Law Office of Steven H. Swander, Fort Worth, TX, W. Andrew McCullough, McCullough & Associates, L.L.C., Midvale, UT, for Plaintiff.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PLAITIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OCTOBER 2003 AND JANUARY 2004 ORDNANCES; THE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: NON-MEDIA PORTIONS OF ORDNANCE 2004-0004 AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORDINANCE 2004-1061; and THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE DAMAGES

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..............................................1011
                   A. Procedural Background.................................................1011
                      1. Claims by Doctor John's............................................1011
                      2. The motion for a preliminary injunction............................1011
                      3. The first round of summary judgment motions........................1012
                      4. Subsequent amendments and motions..................................1012
                      5. The first summary judgment ruling..................................1013
                      6. The second round of summary judgment motions.......................1013
                   B. Factual Background....................................................1014
                      1. The Doctor John's store in Sioux City..............................1014
                      2. Sioux City zoning ordinances and amendments........................1015
                         a. Pre-existing ordinances.........................................1016
                         b. The "Moratorium" Amendment......................................1017
                         c. The January 2004 Amendments.....................................1017
                
                i. Amended Ordinance 2004-0004..................................1018
                           ii. Amended Ordinance 2004-0024..................................1019
                          iii. Background to the summary judgment motions on the
                                January 2004 Amendments.....................................1020
                       d. The December 2004 Amendments......................................1021
                            i. Amended Ordinance 2004-1059..................................1021
                           ii. Amended Ordinance 2004-1060..................................1023
                          iii. Amended Ordinance 2004-1061..................................1024
                II. LEGAL ANALYSIS..........................................................1025
                    A. Standards For Summary Judgment And Reconsideration...................1025
                    B. Issues Relating To The January 2004 Amendments.......................1027
                       1. Arguments of the parties..........................................1028
                       2. Analysis..........................................................1029
                          a. Constitutionality issues.......................................1029
                             i. Did the "media" provisions satisfy the applicable level
                                  of scrutiny?..............................................1029
                            ii. Were the "non-media" provisions independently
                                 constitutional?............................................1032
                          b. Applicability issues...........................................1036
                          c. Damages issues.................................................1038
                       3. Summary...........................................................1039
                    C. The Motion To Bifurcate Damages Issues...............................1040
                       1. Arguments of the parties..........................................1040
                       2. Analysis..........................................................1040
                    D. Issues Relating To The December 2004 Amendments......................1042
                       1. Arguments of the parties..........................................1042
                       2. Analysis..........................................................1044
                       a. The "adult bookstore or adult video store" provisions.............1044
                             i. "Constitutionality" of the provisions.......................1045
                            ii. "Applicability" of the provisions...........................1049
                       b. The "sexual device shop" provisions...............................1050
                             i. The "equal protection" challenge............................1050
                            ii. The "substantive due process" challenge.....................1052
                       c. The licensing "civil disability" provision........................1053
                             i. "Constitutionality" of the provision........................1053
                            ii. "Applicability" of the provision............................1055
                CONCLUSION..................................................................1055
                

Since late 2003, the plaintiff, a putative "adult entertainment business," and the defendant, the City of Sioux City, Iowa, have been embroiled in a dispute over the constitutionality and applicability of a string of amendments to city zoning ordinances regulating the location of "adult entertainment businesses" within the City's limits. The initial amendments to the pertinent ordinances were passed just in time to bar the plaintiff's new store from opening in a developing retail area near the southern edge of the City. Only a preliminary injunction issued by this court permitted the plaintiff to commence business at its chosen location. The court subsequently granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's request to make the preliminary injunction permanent, denied the City's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and directed that the preliminary injunction previously issued continue in full force and effect, to the extent that its provisions had not been made permanent. As trial approaches, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment in its favor on its claims that subsequent amendments to the pertinent City ordinances are unconstitutional and unenforceable against it, while the City seeks reconsideration of parts of the court's prior summary judgment ruling as to the earlier round of amendments, summary judgment in its favor on the constitutionality of provisions of one of those earlier amendments that purports to regulate "adult entertainment businesses" on the basis of "non-media" inventory, and summary judgment in its favor on the constitutionality of one of its later amendments that imposes certain licensing requirements for "adult entertainment businesses." The court must decide which, if any, of the many issues presented can be resolved prior to trial.

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 2003 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 (the January 2004 Amendments). 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, shortly after filing its original Complaint, 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. The moratorium had expired by the time of the evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on February 20, 2004. At the evidentiary hearing, however, 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) (Doctor John's I ), 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. With the exception of certain provisions subsequently made permanent, the preliminary injunction has remained in effect until this time.

3. The first round of summary judgment motions

Some ten months after the court's preliminary injunction ruling, on December...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc., s. COA15–260
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • May 10, 2016
    ...[plaintiff] proposed to build, and that his was the only application pending in that area"); Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, 438 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1035 (N.D.Iowa 2006) (holding evidence that city "systematically targeted [plaintiff] for exclusion and has amended its ordinances for ......
  • Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal, CIV 11–3002–RAL.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. District of South Dakota
    • February 2, 2012
    ...under Rule 54(b) where court had dismissed some, but not all of plaintiff's claims); Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, IA, 438 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1027 (N.D.Iowa 2006) (finding that Rule 54(b) provides authority for a court to reconsider any interlocutory order, including a prior rulin......
  • Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, Iowa
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Northern District of Iowa
    • December 20, 2006
    ...round of summary judgment motions. In another lengthy ruling, published on July 21, 2006, Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, 438 F.Supp.2d 1005 (N.D.Iowa 2006) (Doctor John's III), the court addressed the parties' second round of summary judgment motions. Most recently, in a ruling ......
  • Mitchell v. 10th & the Bypass, LLC
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 28, 2012
    ...sound discretion of the trial judge.Acha v. Beame, 570 F.2d 57, 63 (2d Cir.1978); see also Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, 438 F.Supp.2d 1005, 1026–27 (N.D.Iowa 2006); Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 306 F.Supp.2d 958, 968 (S.D.Cal.2003); Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 732......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Applying Legal Expressivism to Motive Review of Adult-Use Zoning
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 36-3, May 2008
    • May 1, 2008
    ...on the ground that the question of “personal or political animus” was a question of fact. Doctor John’s, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, 438 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1047– 48 (N.D. Iowa 2006). 53 See, e.g. , Doctor John’s, Inc. , 438 F. Supp. 2d at 1047–48. 54 Adler, supra note 24, at 1364, 1377. 55 L......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT