Wacko's Too, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville
Decision Date | 01 March 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:20-cv-303-TJC-MCR |
Parties | WACKO'S TOO, INC., etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, etc., et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
James S. Benjamin, Benjamin, Aaronson, Edinger & Patanzo, PA, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Gary S. Edinger, Benjamin, Aaronson, Edinger & Patanzo, P.A., Gainesville, FL, for Plaintiffs.
Craig D. Feiser, Jason R. Teal, Mary Margaret Giannini, City of Jacksonville Office of General Counsel, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants City of Jacksonville, Mike Williams.
Gabriella Young, Office of General Counsel, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant N. O. Archbold.
This case is about whether the City of Jacksonville may impose certain restrictions on adult entertainment businesses and their performers without running afoul of the Constitution. A group of thirteen adult entertainment establishments and four performers filed this lawsuit1 against the City of Jacksonville and Sheriff Mike Williams in his official capacity as Sheriff of Duval County.2 (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleges violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments stemming mostly from Ordinance 2020-74-E, enacted by the Jacksonville City Council in February 2020 to amend Chapters 150 and 151 of the Jacksonville Code. Immediately after filing the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction as to certain counts. (Doc. 2). The Court elected to consolidate the preliminary injunction hearing with a non-jury trial on the merits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). The City agreed to abate enforcement of the Ordinance until the Court rules on the issues. (Doc. 21 at 3).
The parties agreed to a list of eleven selected counts to be tried on an expedited basis, all of which the parties view as purely legal issues involving facial constitutional challenges or preemption. (Doc. 21).3 Plaintiffs then submitted a Trial Brief on Agreed Legal Issues (Doc. 23). The City filed a response in opposition (Doc. 25), Plaintiffs filed a reply (Doc. 28), and the City filed a sur-reply (Doc. 29). The City also filed over six hundred pages of documents in support of its response. (Docs. 30, 30-1, 30-2, 30-3, 30-4, 30-5, 30-6, 30-7, 30-8). On the eve of the bench trial, the City filed two additional affidavits. (Docs. 33, 33-1, 34, 34-1). Plaintiffs recently filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Support of Count I of their Complaint (Prior Restraint). (Docs. 38, 38-1). The Court conducted a non-jury trial on the selected counts on September 18, 2020, the record of which is incorporated by reference. (Doc. 36). The remaining issues are preserved for trial at a later date. (Doc. 21 at 2).
The City passed Ordinance 2020-74-E on February 25, 2020, effective March 5, 2020. (Doc. 1 ¶ 44). The Ordinance amended Chapters 150 and 151 of the Jacksonville Code by instituting new licensing requirements for performers at adult entertainment establishments in Jacksonville, in addition to other changes. (See Doc. 1-1). Plaintiffs fall into three categories: (1) "Dancing entertainment establishments," called "bikini bars," regulated primarily by Chapter 151 that "provide live exotic dance performances in a nightclub format where alcoholic beverages are sold," and where performers wear coverings over their breasts, buttocks, and pubic regions; (2) Sinsations, an "adult entertainment establishment" regulated primarily under Chapter 150, that operates a "juice bar" with no alcoholic beverages and has nude dancing in a nightclub setting; and (3) individual performers and independent contractors Natalie Sanchez, Neva Clinkscale, Chelsea Gallagher, and Rebecca Anderson, who have worked at one or more of the establishments.4 Sanchez and Clinkscale are over eighteen but under twenty-one. (Doc. 23 at 5). Sanchez has worked at Sinsations. Id. at 5. The other performers have worked exclusively at bikini bars. Id. Under the Ordinance, all four are required to obtain a Work Identification Card to continue dancing at the establishments, but the Ordinance also prohibits anyone under age twenty-one from obtaining a card.
The City contends that the licensing requirements and restrictions are designed to combat human trafficking. At trial, the City highlighted these excerpts from a six-hundred-page record:
In addition, the Ordinance itself contains several "whereas" clauses:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Palms
...2019 WL 6873520, at *4 (N.D. 2019) (recognizing sex trafficking is a type of human trafficking); Wacko's Too, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville , 522 F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1142 (M.D. Fla. 2021) (quoting a Florida ordinance that recognizes sex trafficking as a common form of human trafficking).11 Eve......
-
DC Operating, LLC v. Paxton
...Br. at 5; Cnty. Def. Br. at 7.63 See Doe I v. Landry , 909 F.3d 99, 107 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Wacko's Too, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville , 522 F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1160 (M.D. Fla. 2021)64 Kev, Inc. v. Kitsap County , 793 F.2d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 1986).65 O'Brien , 391 U.S. at 377, 88 S.Ct. 1673.66......
-
United States v. Palms
...at *4 (N.D.Ga. Dec. 17, 2019) (recognizing sex trafficking is a type of human trafficking); Wacko's Too, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 522 F.Supp.3d 1132, 1142 (M.D. Fla. 2021) (quoting a Florida ordinance that recognizes sex trafficking as a common form of human trafficking). [11] Even if ......
- Harvest Moon Distribs., LLC v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co.