Edinburg Restaurant, Inc. v. Edinburg Tp.

• Decision Date: 06 November 2001
• Docket Number: No. 5:00CV2879.,5:00CV2879.
• Citation: 203 F.Supp.2d 865
• Parties: EDINBURG RESTAURANT, INC. et al., Plaintiff, v. EDINBURG TOWNSHIP, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio

203 F.Supp.2d 865

EDINBURG RESTAURANT, INC. et al., Plaintiff, v. EDINBURG TOWNSHIP, Defendant.

No. 5:00CV2879.

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

November 6, 2001.

Neal G. Atway, Atway, Cochran & Rafidi, Youngstown. OH, Luke Charles Lirot, Tampa, FL, for plaintiffs.

Abraham Cantor, Concord, OH, W. Scott Fowler, Comstock, Springer & Wilson, Youngstown, OH, Chad E. Murdock, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Potage County, Ravenna, OH, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LIMBERT, United States Magistrate Judge.

Edinburg Township (Defendant) moves this Court for partial summary judgment on Edinburg Restaurant, Inc. and Ellinos, Inc.'s (Plaintiffs) claim that Defendant's zoning resolution is unconstitutional. See Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Dkt. # 20. In their memorandum in opposition and supplemental authority filings, Plaintiffs counter and urge the Court to grant summary judgment in their favor. See ECF Dkt. # 27, 33.

I. JURISDICTION

"The Constitution allows federal courts only a limited and special jurisdiction, and powers not given to the federal courts by Congress are reserved to the primary repositories of American judicial power: state courts." Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Exp. Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1252 (6th Cir.1996). Article III of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the judicial power of the United States to hear cases, including "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made." U.S. Const. Art. III § 2, cl. 1 (referred to as federal question jurisdiction). Congress chose to statutorily codify the federal question edict in almost precisely the same form as provided for in the Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.") Thus, federal courts have the power to hear federal question cases to the fullest extent provided for by the Constitution. See id.

The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. See Toledo Fair Housing Center v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies, 61 F.Supp.2d 681, 682 (N.D.Ohio 1999). A plaintiff invokes federal question jurisdiction by presenting a pertinent Federal issue on the face of the complaint. See Blair v. Source One Mortg. Services Corp., 925 F.Supp. 617, 620 (D.Minn.1996). Plaintiffs in the case sub judice have clearly presented a federal issue on the face of their complaint. See ECF Dkt. # 1. In addition to other federal constitutional claims, Plaintiffs emphasize their right to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 that Defendants zoning regulations violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution facially and as applied to adult entertainment businesses. See id. at 1. Based upon this presentation of a fundamental federal claim in Plaintiffs' complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have properly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs, Edinburg Restaurant, Inc. and Ellinos, Inc., maintain offices and conduct business in Portage County, Ohio. See ECF Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 7, 8. Defendant Edinburg Township is a political subdivision in Portage County, Ohio. See id. at ¶ 9. Plaintiffs once owned and operated a restaurant/bar called "Bronco's" in Portage County. See id. at ¶ 12. Sometime in 2000, Plaintiffs began converting Bronco's into an adult entertainment establishment. See id. at ¶ 11, 16.

Plaintiffs allege that in early November, 2000, Defendant verbally warned them that any attempt to open an adult entertainment establishment at the former site of Bronco's would result in swift and immediate sanctions and penalties pursuant to the Edinburg Township Zoning Regulations. See ECF Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 16, and exhibit 1. Plaintiffs went ahead and opened their adult entertainment establishment despite Defendant's alleged warnings. See ECF Dkt. # 20, exhibit 1 at 3(advertisement for Plaintiffs' adult entertainment establishment dated December 15, 2000 attached to affidavit of Edinburg Township Trustees). Plaintiffs' call their adult entertainment establishment "The Lodge," located in an area of general commercial uses at 3116 State Route 14, Rootstown, Ohio 44272. See id. and ECF Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 11. Plaintiffs aver that their adult entertainment establishment offers exotic dancing performances emphasizing human sexuality. See ECF Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 10. Not coincidentally, around the time that they opened The Lodge, Plaintiffs launched a legal challenge to Defendant's zoning scheme.

On November 15, 2000, Plaintiffs brought the instant action against Defendant seeking a declaration¹ that Defendant's zoning regulations are unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. See ECF Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 1. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from enforcing any and all provisions of its adult use legislation and conditional zoning requirements applicable to adult entertainment businesses.² See id. at ¶ 6. Pursuant to the parties consent, the instant case was transferred to the undersigned's docket for all further proceedings and for entry of judgment. See ECF Dkt. # 8.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendant's zoning regulations violate the First, Fourth, Fifth Amendments as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing conditional use and locational requirements on adult entertainment businesses. See ECF Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 4, 5. More specifically, Plaintiffs aver that Defendant's zoning regulations violate the First Amendment by acting as prior restraints and allowing for unbridled administrative action. See id. On February 20, 2001, Defendant moved this Court for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claim that Defendant's zoning resolution is unconstitutional. See ECF Dkt. # 20. On April 16, 2001 and September 18, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition and notice of supplemental authority, respectively. See ECF Dkt. # 27, 33.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no dispute as to the facts before the Court. See Allen v. Wood, 970 F.Supp. 824, 828 (E.D.Wash.1997). Similarly, the function of summary judgment is to dispose of cases without trial when one party is unable to demonstrate the existence of a factual dispute which, if present, would require resolution by a jury or other trier of fact. See Schultz v. Newsweek, Inc., 668 F.2d 911, 918 (6th Cir.1982). Summary judgment is particularly appropriate in a case challenging the facial constitutionality of a statute. See Tee & Bee, Inc. v. City of West Allis, 936 F.Supp. 1479, 1484 (E.D.Wis.1996)(citing Felix v. Young, 536 F.2d 1126, 1130, n. 7 (6th Cir.1976)).

Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs summary judgment motions and provides, in pertinent part:

The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to the interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

FED. R. CIV. P. 56(C). Under Rule 56, a party is entitled to summary judgment where the documentary evidence produced by the parties permits only one conclusion. See Allen, 970 F.Supp. at 828(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion, and must identify the portions of "`the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)(quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)). This initial burden can be discharged by the moving party by showing that the nonmoving party has failed to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party's case for which he or she bears the ultimate burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548; Morales v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 71 F.3d 531, 535 (6th Cir.1995). The evidence submitted must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. See Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970).

If the moving party meets this burden, then the nonmoving party must take affirmative steps to avoid the entry of a summary judgment. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e). The nonmoving party must present additional evidence beyond the pleadings. See id. The nonmoving party must do this by presenting more than a scintilla of evidence in support of his or her position. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment must be granted unless sufficient evidence exists that favors the nonmoving party such that a judge or jury could reasonably return a verdict for that party. See id. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The Court is not "to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial." Id. If a party fails to make a showing that is "sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial," then the Court is required to enter summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.

IV. DEFENDANT'S ZONING REGULATIONS

The Edinburg Township Zoning Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Resolution), amended in 1998, regulate land uses...