Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United States | 1-800-335-6202

N.W. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Houston

Document Cited authorities 136 Cited in 53 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Decision Date18 February 1998
Docket NumberCivil Action No. H-97-0196.
Citation27 F.Supp.2d 754
PartiesN.W. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas

27 F.Supp.2d 754

N.W. ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF HOUSTON, Defendant.

Civil Action No. H-97-0196.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.

February 18, 1998.

As Amended June 9, 1998.

Opinion Supplementing Decision on Reconsideration, June 11, 1998.

Additional Supplemental Opinion August 7, 1998.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

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.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

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
                
                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
                
                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
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Horizon Outdoor v. City of Industry, California
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • October 21, 2002
    ...the Council 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 "insuf......
  • Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 27, 2004
    ...there 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 t......
  • Brownell v. City of Rochester
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • May 14, 2001
    ...These requirements 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"......
  • Bigg Wolf Discount Video Movie v. Montgomery Cty., No. CIV.A. DKC 2001-3386.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • March 28, 2003
    ...affect First 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, 4......
    • Request a trial to view additional results

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