This one from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiff, Doctor John’s, is an adult novelty store suing the City of Roy, Utah. This sums it up: “Although we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking the articles, even if the articles were considered as evidence under the Alameda Books framework, Doctor John’s has failed to cast doubt on the City’s rationale that its ordinance is narrowly tailored to prevent the secondary effects of adult businesses.” (Kelly, J.)
And this one from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The plaintiff, Blue Moon Entertainment, LLC, is trying to open and “operate an entertainment complex which would include ‘consenting adult non-obscene performance dance entertainment’ performed by females” in Bates City. I’ll elaborate later regarding some interesting severability arguments, but for now the conclusion:
In sum, summary judgment will be granted in favor of plaintiff, in part, to the extent that there is no genuine issue for trial regarding the constitutionality of Sec. 406 to the extent that the initial paragraphs vested unbridled discretion with the Board of Aldermen, and did not set forth specific time limits for the Board to act. However, in addition to a judgment declaring Section 406 unconstitutional, plaintiff requests that defendant be ordered to issue a business license to plaintiff. Yet, plaintiff cites no relevant authority in support of its contention. Defendant correctly notes, and I agree, plaintiff “wholly ignores the ordinances currently in place …. with respect to obtaining a business license …. Consequently, summary judgment will be denied with respect to the issuance of a business license. If plaintiff does not contest the current ordinances and does not pursue its night club project thereunder, presumably a theory of damages for past meritorious grievances may exist and should be prepared for trial, if not settled.