N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston, Civil Action No. H-97-0196.
| Court | United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Texas |
| Writing for the Court | Atlas |
| Citation | 27 F.Supp.2d 754 |
| Parties | N.W. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant. |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. H-97-0196. |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1998 |
v.
The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant.
Page 755
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 756
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 757
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 758
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 759
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 760
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 761
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 762
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 763
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 764
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 765
Beatrice Mladenka-Fowler, Mladenka-Fowler & Associates, Houston, TX, Michael Acuna, Asst. City Atty., Donna Edmunson, Sr. Asst. City Atty., Gilbert Douglas, Sr. Asst. City Atty., Gene L. Locke, City Atty., Anthony W. Hall Jr., City Atty., for City of Houston, Texas.
Gerald Hopkins, Houston, TX, for N.W. Enterprises, Inc., et al.
Joe W. Meyer, Louis J. Gurwitch, Meyer, Knight & Williams, Houston, TX, John H. Weston, G. Randall Garrou, Weston, Garrou & DeWitt, Los Angeles, CA, David A. Furlow, Morris & Campbell, Houston, TX, for FTU, Inc., Dajo, Inc. Ice Embassy, Inc., Texas Richmond Corp., et al.
Nelson T. Hensley, Houston, TX, H. Louis Sirkin, Sirkin, Pinales, Mezibov & Schwartz, Cincinnati, OH, David A. Wasserman, Winter Park, FL, for Chil Soung, et al. and Trumps, Inc., et al.
Mike DeGeurin, Foreman, DeGeurin, Gerger & Nugent, Houston, TX and Joseph M. Grant, Nicholas, Grant & Hubbard, Houston, TX, for A.H.D., Inc., et al.
Peter Heckler, Houston, TX, for Southeastern Management, Inc.
John E. Hill, Houston, TX, for Elgin Investment, Ltd dba French Quarter (Filed motion to intervene on May 14, 1997; Intervention motion granted on May 15, 1997).
Becki Fahle, San Antonio, TX, John Fahle, San Antonio, TX, for Dee & Dee Enterprises, Inc., et al.
Phillip W. Boyko, Houston, TX, for Mark Thai Do, et al.
Rokki Ford Roberts, Houston, TX, for Marketing Organization of America, Inc., et al.
Paul Decuir, Jr., Houston, TX, for D.S.S.S. Aria Merica, Inc.
Jimmy L. DeFoyd, DeFoyd & Associates, Houston, TX, for Kim Mihulka dba ACME Studio, et al.
ATLAS, District Judge.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 767
A. Procedural History ....................................................... 767
B. History of the Ordinance ................................................. 770
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD ................................................... 772
III. LEGAL STANDARD FOR FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE ................................ 773
A. Businesses Entitled to Heightened First Amendment Scrutiny ............... 774
1. Content-Based Regulations Receive Strict Scrutiny ............... 774
2. Content-Neutral Regulations Receive Intermediate Scrutiny ....... 774
3. Distinguishing Content-Based from Content-Neutral Regulations ... 776
4. The Relevance of Turner Broadcasting System v. F.C.C. ........... 779
B. Businesses Not Entitled to Heightened First Amendment Scrutiny Receive
Rational Basis Review for All Provisions of the Ordinance ................ 780
C. Can the Ordinance's Validity Be Determined Through Summary Judgment? ..... 782
1. In General ............................................................ 782
2. Chil Soung's § 1983 and § 1985 Claims ................................. 784
3. Other Issues Plaintiffs Claim Have Not Been Addressed by the City's
Summary Judgment Motion ............................................... 785
IV. GENERAL OBJECTIONS TO THE CITY'S EVIDENCE ................................... 785
V. OBJECTIONS TO SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE .......................... 787
A. Coverage of the Ordinance ................................................ 787
1. Vagueness ............................................................. 787
2. Overbreadth ........................................................... 789
Page 766
3. Enterprises Containing Coin-Operated Machines ......................... 790
4. Extension of Ordinance's Coverage to Adult Mini-Theatres .............. 791
B. Locational Restrictions ...................................... 792
1. Abstention Question ................................................... 793
2. Local and State Statutory Arguments ................................... 795
a. Zoning and the Houston City Charter ................................ 795
b. Locational Restrictions on Enterprises Containing Coin-Operated
Machines ........................................................... 798
3. First Amendment Challenge ............................................. 800
a. Increased Distance Requirements: ................................... 800
The New 1,500 Foot Rules
i. Content-Based or Content-Neutral? ............................... 800
ii. Conclusion as to Validity of Increased Distance Requirements for
Protected Businesses ........................................... 813
b. Public Parks ....................................................... 814
i. Content-Based or Content-Neutral? ............................... 814
ii. Narrowly Tailored to Serve Substantial Governmental Interests? . 815
iii. Alternative Avenues of Communication .......................... 815
iv. Conclusion as to Validity of New Provision Regarding Public
Parks .......................................................... 815
c. Multifamily Dwellings .............................................. 815
i. Content-Based or Content-Neutral? ............................... 815
ii. Narrowly Tailored to Serve Substantial Governmental Interests? . 816
iii. Alternative Avenues of Communication .......................... 816
iv. Conclusion as to Validity of New Formula Regarding Multifamily
Dwellings ...................................................... 817
C. Amortization ................................................. 817
1. Guidelines for Providing Amortization Extensions ...................... 818
2. Time Limits on Amortization Decisionmaker ............................. 820
3. Adequacy of Amortization .............................................. 821
4. Amortization for Adult Arcades and Mini-Theatres ...................... 821
5. Amortization for Plaintiffs in 4330 Richmond .............. 822
6. Measure of Compensation ............................................... 822
7. Length of Amortization Period ......................................... 823
D. Notice Provision ............................................. 823
E. Structural, Visibility, and Lighting Requirements ............ 824
1. Permissibility of Non-Locational Regulation of Sexually Oriented
Businesses Under Texas State Law ...................................... 824
2. What These New Requirements Prohibit .................................. 824
3. Legislative Justification for These Requirements ...................... 826
4. Patrons' Right to Privacy ............................................. 827
5. Economic Harm to Plaintiffs ........................................... 828
F. Signage and Exterior Portions Restrictions ................... 829
1. The Restrictions ...................................................... 829
2. The Continued Applicability of SDJ .................................... 832
3. Extension of Signage Restrictions to Enterprises in Multi-Unit Centers 834
4. State Law Requirements for Revising Signage Restrictions .............. 835
G. Entertainer and Manager Permit Requirement ................... 836
1. Permissibility of Individual Permit Requirement ....................... 838
2. Content-Based or Content-Neutral? ..................................... 839
3. Narrowly Tailored to Serve Substantial Governmental Interests? ........ 840
4. Public Disclosure of Permit Application Information Under Texas
Public Information Act ................................................ 841
5. Prior Restraint ....................................................... 843
a. Procedural Safeguards .............................................. 843
i. Application Processing Period ................................... 844
ii. Prompt Judicial Review ......................................... 846
iii. Burden on City to Justify Permit Denials in Court ............. 846
b. Criminal Background Check .......................................... 847
c. Texas Constitution ................................................. 847
6. "As Applied" Challenge ................................................ 848
Page 767
7. Conspicuous Display Requirement ....................................... 848
H. No-Touch and Three-Foot Rules ................................ 850
1. Content-Based or Content-Neutral? ..................................... 850
a. Legislative Justification for these Requirements ................... 851
b. Economic Impact .................................................... 851
2. Narrowly Tailored to Serve Substantial Governmental Interests? ........ 853
3. Interference With Expressive Content .................................. 855
4. Vagueness and Arbitrary Enforcement ................................... 856
5. Texas Constitution .................................................... 857
VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................... 857
I. INTRODUCTION
One hundred five individuals and eighty-eight Houston-area adult entertainment establishments — cabarets, movie theatres, arcades, mini-theatres, video stores, bookstores, modeling studios, and tanning salons — have brought this action challenging the City of Houston's most recent amendments to its sexually oriented business regulatory ordinance. Plaintiffs attack Ordinance 97-75 (hereinafter "Ordinance"), enacted on January 15, 1997, primarily on the ground that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
29 practice notes
-
Horizon Outdoor v. City of Industry, California, No. CV023465ABCPLAX.
...deliberations, that might provide the Court with some indication of the original intent. Cf. N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 854 (S.D.Tex.1998) (considering minutes and transcripts of committee However, the Supreme Court has indicated that the "insufficiency of ......
-
Brownell v. City of Rochester, Nos. 00-CV-6597L, 00-CV-5698L, 01-CV-6012L.
...are intrusive and bear little if any relevance to any substantial government interest. N.W. Enter., Inc. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 841 (S.D.Tex. 1998) ("the City has indicated no reason why it needs managers' and entertainers' phone numbers and home addresses"). The requirement ......
-
Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, No. 00-16531.
...is no guarantee of confidentiality, "concerns about public disclosure ... are not inconsequential." N.W. Enters. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 842 (S.D.Tex.1998), rev'd in part, 352 F.3d at 198. As the district court in N.W. Enterprises Adult entertainers may anonymously (or through......
-
Bigg Wolf Discount Video Movie v. Montgomery Cty., No. CIV.A. DKC 2001-3386.
...Amendment interests but are content-neutral are evaluated under `intermediate scrutiny.'" N. W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 773 (S.D.Tex.1998) (citing Renton, 475 U.S. at 46-17, 106 S.Ct. 925); see also Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, ......
Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
-
Horizon Outdoor v. City of Industry, California, No. CV023465ABCPLAX.
...deliberations, that might provide the Court with some indication of the original intent. Cf. N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 854 (S.D.Tex.1998) (considering minutes and transcripts of committee However, the Supreme Court has indicated that the "insufficiency of ......
-
Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, No. 00-16531.
...is no guarantee of confidentiality, "concerns about public disclosure ... are not inconsequential." N.W. Enters. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 842 (S.D.Tex.1998), rev'd in part, 352 F.3d at 198. As the district court in N.W. Enterprises Adult entertainers may anonymously (or through......
-
Brownell v. City of Rochester, Nos. 00-CV-6597L, 00-CV-5698L, 01-CV-6012L.
...are intrusive and bear little if any relevance to any substantial government interest. N.W. Enter., Inc. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 841 (S.D.Tex. 1998) ("the City has indicated no reason why it needs managers' and entertainers' phone numbers and home addresses"). The requirement ......
-
Bigg Wolf Discount Video Movie v. Montgomery Cty., No. CIV.A. DKC 2001-3386.
...Amendment interests but are content-neutral are evaluated under `intermediate scrutiny.'" N. W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754, 773 (S.D.Tex.1998) (citing Renton, 475 U.S. at 46-17, 106 S.Ct. 925); see also Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, ......
Request a trial to view additional results