Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, Ia, C 03-4121 MWB.

438 F.Supp.2d 1005

DOCTOR JOHN'S, INC., an Iowa Corporation, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, Defendant.

No. C 03-4121 MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

July 21, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Brian Blane Vakulskas, Vakulskas & Hoffmeyer, Sioux City, IA, Steven H. Swander, Law Office of Steven H. Swander, Fort Worth, TX, W. Andrew McCullough, McCullough & Associates, L.L.C., Midvale, UT, for Plaintiff.

Connie E. Anstey, James L. Abshier, Sioux City, IA, Scott D. Bergthold, Law Office of Scott D. Bergthold, P.L.L.C., Chattanooga, TN, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING THE PLAITIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OCTOBER 2003 AND JANUARY 2004 ORDNANCES; THE DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE: NON-MEDIA PORTIONS OF ORDNANCE 2004-0004 AND CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ORDINANCE 2004-1061; and THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO BIFURCATE DAMAGES

BENNETT, Chief Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND..............................................1011
   A. Procedural Background.................................................1011
      1. Claims by Doctor John's............................................1011
      2. The motion for a preliminary injunction............................1011
      3. The first round of summary judgment motions........................1012
      4. Subsequent amendments and motions..................................1012
      5. The first summary judgment ruling..................................1013
      6. The second round of summary judgment motions.......................1013
   B. Factual Background....................................................1014
      1. The Doctor John's store in Sioux City..............................1014
      2. Sioux City zoning ordinances and amendments........................1015
         a. Pre-existing ordinances.........................................1016
         b. The "Moratorium" Amendment......................................1017
         c. The January 2004 Amendments.....................................1017

i. Amended Ordinance 2004-0004..................................1018
           ii. Amended Ordinance 2004-0024..................................1019
          iii. Background to the summary judgment motions on the
                January 2004 Amendments.....................................1020
       d. The December 2004 Amendments......................................1021
            i. Amended Ordinance 2004-1059..................................1021
           ii. Amended Ordinance 2004-1060..................................1023
          iii. Amended Ordinance 2004-1061..................................1024
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS..........................................................1025
    A. Standards For Summary Judgment And Reconsideration...................1025
    B. Issues Relating To The January 2004 Amendments.......................1027
       1. Arguments of the parties..........................................1028
       2. Analysis..........................................................1029
          a. Constitutionality issues.......................................1029
             i. Did the "media" provisions satisfy the applicable level
                  of scrutiny?..............................................1029
            ii. Were the "non-media" provisions independently
                 constitutional?............................................1032
          b. Applicability issues...........................................1036
          c. Damages issues.................................................1038
       3. Summary...........................................................1039
    C. The Motion To Bifurcate Damages Issues...............................1040
       1. Arguments of the parties..........................................1040
       2. Analysis..........................................................1040
    D. Issues Relating To The December 2004 Amendments......................1042
       1. Arguments of the parties..........................................1042
       2. Analysis..........................................................1044
       a. The "adult bookstore or adult video store" provisions.............1044
             i. "Constitutionality" of the provisions.......................1045
            ii. "Applicability" of the provisions...........................1049
       b. The "sexual device shop" provisions...............................1050
             i. The "equal protection" challenge............................1050
            ii. The "substantive due process" challenge.....................1052
       c. The licensing "civil disability" provision........................1053
             i. "Constitutionality" of the provision........................1053
            ii. "Applicability" of the provision............................1055
CONCLUSION..................................................................1055

Since late 2003, the plaintiff, a putative "adult entertainment business," and the defendant, the City of Sioux City, Iowa, have been embroiled in a dispute over the constitutionality and applicability of a string of amendments to city zoning ordinances regulating the location of "adult entertainment businesses" within the City's limits. The initial amendments to the pertinent ordinances were passed just in time to bar the plaintiff's new store from opening in a developing retail area near the southern edge of the City. Only a preliminary injunction issued by this court permitted the plaintiff to commence business at its chosen location. The court subsequently granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's request to make the preliminary injunction permanent, denied the City's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and directed that the preliminary injunction previously issued continue in full force and effect, to the extent that its provisions had not been made permanent. As trial approaches, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment in its favor on its claims that subsequent amendments to the pertinent City ordinances are unconstitutional and unenforceable against it, while the City seeks reconsideration of parts of the court's prior summary judgment ruling as to the earlier round of amendments, summary judgment in its favor on the constitutionality of provisions of one of those earlier amendments that purports to regulate "adult entertainment businesses" on the basis of "non-media" inventory, and summary judgment in its favor on the constitutionality of one of its later amendments that imposes certain licensing requirements for "adult entertainment businesses." The court must decide which, if any, of the many issues presented can be resolved prior to trial.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

1. Claims by Doctor John's

Plaintiff Doctor John's, Inc. (Doctor John's), a putative "adult entertainment business," filed its original Complaint in this action on December 9, 2003, against the City of Sioux City, Iowa (the City), and Paul Eckert, in his official capacity as Sioux City's City Manager, challenging Sioux City's municipal ordinances imposing a moratorium on new "adult entertainment businesses" enacted in October 2003 and amended in November 2003. On January 20, 2004, Doctor John's filed an Amended Complaint, and on February 10, 2004, filed a Second Amended Complaint challenging further amendments to Sioux City's zoning ordinances concerning "adult entertainment businesses," enacted in January 2004 (the January 2004 Amendments). In its Second Amended Complaint, Doctor John's alleged that these ordinances violated its right to free expression protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and constituted prior restraints on free expression; failed to allow reasonable alternative means of expression; resulted in a taking of its business property without due process of law; infringed First Amendment freedoms in a manner greater than necessary to further any valid interests of the City; lacked adequate procedural safeguards and failed to provide for prompt judicial review; and denied equal protection. The City denied these claims.

2. The motion for a preliminary injunction

On January 5, 2004, shortly after filing its original Complaint, Doctor John's filed a Motion For Preliminary Injunction in which it requested that the court enjoin the City from enforcing the temporary moratorium on adult entertainment businesses enacted in October 2003. The moratorium had expired by the time of the evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on February 20, 2004. At the evidentiary hearing, however, the court allowed Doctor John's to amend orally its Motion For Preliminary Injunction to seek an injunction against enforcement of the amended "adult entertainment business" ordinances enacted at the expiration of the moratorium in January 2004 (the January 2004 Amendments).

In a published ruling, Doctor John's, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, Iowa, 305 F.Supp.2d 1022 (N.D.Iowa 2004) (Doctor John's I ), filed February 26, 2004, the court entered a preliminary injunction enjoining the City from pursuing, instituting, continuing, or completing any and all enforcement actions pursuant to the municipal code employing the definition of "adult entertainment business" in the January 2004 Amendments, until such time as the preliminary injunction was dissolved or vacated, by this court or a reviewing court. With the exception of certain provisions subsequently made permanent, the preliminary injunction has remained in effect until this time.

3. The first round of summary judgment motions

Some ten months after the court's preliminary injunction ruling, on December...