Ludwig v. TOWNSHIP OF VAN BUREN

• Decision Date: 13 January 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 07-15317.
• Citation: 681 F. Supp.2d 848
• Parties: Crystal LUDWIG, Plaintiff, v. TOWNSHIP OF VAN BUREN, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

681 F. Supp.2d 848

Crystal LUDWIG, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF VAN BUREN, Defendant.

Case No. 07-15317.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

January 13, 2010.

681 F. Supp.2d 849

Michael L. Donaldson, Livonia, MI, Timothy P. Murphy, St. Clair Shores, MI, for Plaintiff.

David J. Szymanski, Henri O. Harmon, Sommers, Schwartz, Southfield, MI, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

AVERN COHN, District Judge.

I. Introduction

This is a First Amendment case. Plaintiff Crystal Ludwig is suing defendant Van Buren Township (Van Buren) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that Township Ordinance 2-16-99(2), section 6-69 entitled "Nudity on Licensed Premises" and Ordinance No. 2-16-1994(4), section 58-206 entitled "Public Indecency" violates her violates her First Amendment rights. Both ordinances define nudity and forbid a person from appearing in a pubic state of nudity. Ludwig is an exotic dancer at The Garter Belt, Inc. d/b/a John's Hot Spot (f/k/a Legg's Lounge) located in Van Buren. The Garter Belt is owned by John Hamilton. Ludwig seeks monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief. She essentially claims the nudity ordinances are overbroad. As will be explained, this is one of several lawsuits challenging the nudity ordinances.

Before the Court is Van Buren's motion for summary judgment on the grounds of res judicata. Van Buren specifically contends that the instant case is virtually identical to a prior case, Bates v. Van Buren Township, No. 02-73692, 2005 WL 1769525 (E.D.Mich.2002), which involved the same nudity ordinances and which the Court dismissed on the grounds of res judicata based on prior litigation between Van Buren and The Garter Belt. For the reasons which follow, the motion will be granted.

II. Background

Ludwig is nearly 21 years old and has been an exotic dancer at Legg's for three years. On December 12, 2007, she filed a complaint against Van Buren challenging two nudity ordinances.

The two nudity ordinances were enacted by Van Buren in 1999 and are as follows:

02-16-1999(2), section 6-69 provides (Nudity on Licensed Premises):

(1) No person, while appearing in a state of nudity as defined by this section, shall frequent, loiter, work or perform in any establishment licensed or subject to licensing by the Michigan Liquor Control Commission. No proprietor or operator of any such establishment of any person who violates the provisions of this section.

681 F. Supp.2d 850

2-16-1999(4), section 58-206 provides (Public Indecency):

(a) For purposes of this section, "nudity" means the showing of the human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks, with less than a fully opaque covering, the showing of the female breast with less than a fully opaque covering of any part of the nipple and areola, or the showing of the covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state. For purposes of this section, nudity shall not include a woman's breast-feeding of a baby whether or not the nipple or areola is exposed during or incidental to the feeding.

(b) For purposes of this section "public place or vehicle" means any of the streets, alleys, parks, boulevards, schools or other public property in the township, or any dance hall, rental hall, theater, amusement park, liquor establishment, store, depot, place of public accommodation or other private property generally frequented by the public for the purposes of education, recreation, amusement, entertainment, sport, shopping or travel; or any vehicle for public transportation, owned or operated by government, either directly or through a public corporation, or authority, or owned or operated by any nongovernmental agency for the use, enjoyment or transportation of the general public.

(c) A person who knowingly or intentionally, in a public place or vehicle:

(1) Engages in sexual intercourse

(2) Engaged in deviant sexual conduct

(3) Appears in a state of nudity

(4) Fondles the genitals of himself or another person; or

(5) Has committed the crime of public indecency, which is a misdemeanor.

(d) Every person convicted for a violation of any provision of this section shall be punished . . .

III. Prior Litigation

The constitutionality of the nudity ordinances has been the subject of numerous cases between Van Buren and The Garter Belt (either by The Garter Belt itself, its owner John Hamilton, or a dancer at The Garter Belt).¹ The first of such cases was brought by Van Buren in Wayne County Circuit Court on November 6, 2000, seeking a permanent injunction that would require The Garter Belt to comply with the Nudity on Licensed Premises ordinance. Van Buren Twp. v. The Garter Belt, 258 Mich.App. 594, 673 N.W.2d 111 (2000) (Garter Belt I). The Garter Belt raised the defense that the ordinance is unconstitutional. On December 13, 2000, the Garter Belt removed the case to federal court where it was assigned to another judge in this district. Van Buren v. The Garter Belt, No. 00-75395 (E.D.Mich.2000).

Two weeks later, on December 28, 2000, The Garter Belt filed a case in this court against Van Buren challenging the scheme of regulation of Van Buren's Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOBs), including the constitutionality of both nudity ordinances (Garter Belt II). The Garter Belt v. Van Buren Twp., No. 00-75630 (E.D.Mich. 2000). (Garter Belt II). Garter Belt I and Garter Belt II were consolidated and heard before the same judge.

In Garter Belt I, following an order to show cause, the district court remanded the case to Wayne County Circuit Court

681 F. Supp.2d 851

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the Garter Belt's defenses to the ordinances (that it is unconstitutional) do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. See Van Buren Twp. v. The Garter Belt, No. 00-75395 (E.D.Mich. Jan. 18, 2001)

In Garter Belt II, the district court granted Van Buren's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court should abstain from hearing the case in deference to Garter Belt I which gave the Garter Belt an adequate opportunity to present all of its claims, state and federal, regarding the nudity ordinances. See The Garter Belt v. Van Buren Twp., No. 00-75360 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2001). The Garter Belt appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. The Garter Belt v. Van Buren Twp., No. 01-2093 (6th Cir. June 2, 2003).

Following dismissal of Garter Belt II, The Garter Belt and Van Buren continued to litigate Garter Belt I in state court. On December 11, 2001, the Wayne County Circuit Court entered a Judgment and Permanent Injunction against The Garter Belt, stating in part that the Nudity on Licensed Premises ordinance "is without constitutional or legal infirmity" and dismissed the Garter Belt's counterclaims. The Garter Belt appealed. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. Van Buren Twp. v. The Garter Belt, 258 Mich.App. 594, 673 N.W.2d 111 (2003). The Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Van Buren Twp. v. The Garter Belt, 470 Mich. 880, 682 N.W.2d 86 (2004). The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. The Garter Belt v. Van Buren Twp., 543 U.S. 1002, 125 S.Ct. 620, 160 L.Ed.2d 462 (2004).

In 2001, while Garter Belt I was proceeding, John Hamilton and others filed suit in this court under § 1983 against various municipalities, including Van Buren, claiming that defendants conspired to violate their civil rights. Hamilton v. Hall, 01-74698 (Hamilton). The case was assigned to the Court. As part of their claims, plaintiffs also sought to have the nudity ordinances declared unconstitutional. After protracted discovery, the Court granted defendants' motions for summary judgment. See Hamilton v. Hall, No. 01-74698 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 18, 2009); and Hamilton v. Hall, No. 01-74698 (E.D.Mich. Aug. 26, 2009). Plaintiffs' appeal from these orders is pending in the Sixth Circuit. Hamilton v. Hall, 09-2196 (6th Cir.2009).

Meanwhile, in 2002, Samantha Bates, an exotic dancer at The Garter Belt, filed a § 1983 action in this court challenging the constitutionality of the Nudity on Licensed Premises ordinance. She also sought money damages. Bates v. Van Buren Twp., 02-73692 (E.D.Mich. 2002) (Bates). The case was assigned to the Court. In 2003, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Because the constitutionality of the nudity ordinances were being considered by the Michigan Court of Appeals in the Garter Belt I, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice based on the abstention doctrine in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976).

Bates appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision to abstain, but modified the Court's decision to require a stay of proceedings rather than a dismissal without prejudice. Bates v. Van Buren Township, 122 Fed.Appx. 803 (6th Cir. 2004).

After the Supreme Court denied certiorari in the Garter Belt I, the Court lifted the stay and requested briefing on "the impact of the state court's decision in Garter Belt I on Bates's claims and whether any doctrine(s) bar(s) Bates from litigating her claims in this forum."

681 F. Supp.2d 852

Following briefing, the Court dismissed the case on the grounds that Bates' claim was barred by res judicata. Bates v. Van Buren Twp., No. 02-73692, 2005 WL 1769525 (July 25, 2005). Bates appealed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Bates v. Van Buren Twp., 459 F.3d 731 (2006). The Supreme Court denied certiorari. Bates v. Van Buren Twp., 550 U.S. 935, 127 S.Ct. 2255, ...