By Leslie Z. Walker
In Alameda Books et al. v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2011, No. 09-55367) ____ F.3d____ [2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1769], the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether plaintiffs had presented actual and convincing evidence to cast doubt on the City of Los Angeles’ rational in enacting an ordinance requiring the dispersal of adult entertainment businesses. The United States District Court for the Central District granted summary judgment against the City of Los Angeles finding plaintiffs’ evidence was actual and convincing enough to cast doubt on the city’s purpose in enacting the ordinance on appeal. The Ninth Circuit found that the declarations were facially biased and insufficient to call into question the municipality’s justification of the ordinance.
After conducting a study from which it concluded that incidences of crime are higher in areas with concentrations adult businesses, the City of Los Angeles enacted an ordinance requiring among other things, that an adult arcade not be located within 1,000 feet of an adult bookstore. The city thereafter amended the ordinance to clarify that an adult arcade and adult bookstore also could not operate in the same establishment. A city inspector informed the plaintiffs, Alameda Books and Highland Books, establishments containing both adult print media and adult arcades, that they were in violation of the ordinance. Plaintiffs brought suit in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, pursuant to 42 U.S.C., § 1983, a federal statute which provides a remedy for persons who, under color of state law, are deprived of rights, privileges or immunities granted under federal law or the United States Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and the city appealed.
...
