Six Star Holdings LLC v. City of Milwaukee
Filing
78
DECISION AND ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 3/18/13 granting in part and denying in part 43 Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 53 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Summary judg ment is granted to the City on plaintiffs claims involving the tavern and tavern-amusement ordinances. Summary judgment is granted to Six Star on the issue of the Citys liability for damages relating to Six Stars inability to offer erotic dance ente rtainment without also serving alcohol at the Old World Third location. Further, granting 48 , 54 Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages. Further setting status conference for 4/11/2013 10:30 AM in Courtroom 390, 517 E Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202 before Judge Lynn Adelman. (cc: all counsel) (dm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SIX STAR HOLDINGS, LLC
and FEROL, LLC
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 10-C-0893
CITY OF MILWAUKEE
Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
Since 2009, plaintiffs Six Star Holdings, LLC and Ferol, LLC have sought to open
night clubs featuring erotic dance entertainment in the downtown area of the City of
Milwaukee. In order to both serve liquor and present erotic dancing, the plaintiffs had to
obtain two licenses under the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances: a tavern license and a
“tavern amusement” license. In August 2010, each plaintiff applied for both licenses, and
the City denied their applications. A year later, in September 2011, plaintiff Six Star
decided to open a night club that featured erotic dance entertainment but did not serve
alcohol. Six Star thought that to open such a “dry” gentlemen’s club, it needed to be
licensed to operate a theater. It therefore applied for a theater license. However, the City
never acted on that application. Instead, a few months after Six Star applied for a theater
license, the City repealed the chapter of the Code of Ordinances that provided for issuance
of theater licenses. At the same time, the City also repealed the ordinance governing
tavern-amusement licenses as well as a related ordinance governing “public entertainment
clubs.”
The City replaced these ordinances with new ordinances governing “public
entertainment premises.”
In the present lawsuit, which arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the plaintiffs allege that
the former ordinances governing tavern amusement, theaters, and public entertainment
clubs violated the First Amendment. They also allege that the tavern, tavern-amusement,
and theater ordinances were unconstitutionally applied to them. The plaintiffs do not seek
any injunctive or other form of prospective relief, and they do not bring any claims involving
the newly enacted ordinance governing public entertainment premises. Instead, they seek
only damages for the time period in which the repealed ordinances (and the tavern
ordinance, which is still in force) prevented them from offering erotic dance entertainment
in the City. Before me now are the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiffs are managed by John Ferraro, who is the manager of three existing
erotic dance establishments in Wisconsin, each named Silk Exotic Gentlemen’s Club. One
of these establishments is located in the City of Milwaukee, although not in the downtown
area. In 2009, Ferraro formed Ferol and leased premises located on Pittsburgh Avenue
in downtown Milwaukee, intending to open a new erotic dance establishment, named Satin.
Because Satin would have offered both liquor and erotic entertainment, Ferol needed to
obtain both a tavern license and a tavern-amusement license. Ferol applied for both
licenses in July 2009. Once the applications were filed, the alderman for the district in
which Satin was to be located informed his constituents of Ferol’s proposal. Many in the
neighborhood voiced opposition to the proposal, and Ferol’s lawyer advised it that, based
on the amount of public opposition, the applications were sure to be denied. Under the
Code of Ordinances, when a license application is denied, the applicant is disqualified from
2
applying for the same license for the same premises for one year. See Milwaukee Code
of Ordinances § 85-13-4-a. After considering the advice of its lawyer, Ferol decided to
withdraw its applications rather than risk having the applications denied and being
prohibited from reapplying for one year.
In August 2010, Ferraro decided to reapply for tavern and tavern-amusement
licenses for Satin. He also decided to attempt to open a third erotic dance establishment
in the City of Milwaukee and formed Six Star for the purpose of operating that
establishment, which would have been named Silk East. Six Star proceeded to execute
a lease for a location on Old World Third Street in downtown Milwaukee and to apply for
the necessary tavern and tavern-amusement licenses.
Soon after Ferol and Six Star filed their applications, community members
expressed opposition to the proposals. However, rather than withdraw their applications,
both Ferol and Six Star decided to proceed to a hearing before the Licenses Committee
of the Milwaukee Common Council, which was held on September 20, 2010. During the
hearing, the Committee heard testimony from members of the communities surrounding
each proposed establishment. The plaintiffs had lawyers present and were permitted to
cross-examine the community members who testified in opposition to the applications.
The plaintiffs were also permitted to present their own witnesses in support of their
applications.
The Committee heard Six Star’s applications first. Sixteen witnesses testified in
opposition to its proposal for the Old World Third location. Ten of those witnesses
represented commercial interests in the neighborhood, such as existing retail stores,
hotels, and business associations. They almost uniformly opposed using the location as
3
an erotic dance establishment on the ground that such a use would have been inconsistent
with a development plan that had been adopted for the neighborhood. The business
representatives testified that the goal of the development plan was to attract more retail
establishments to the neighborhood, such as clothing stores and other shops, and that the
presence of a gentlemen’s club would deter retailers from moving in.
Most of the
remaining witnesses were residents of the neighborhood, including individuals who lived
in apartments above the proposed location. Those witnesses expressed concern about
the noise that the proposed establishment would generate, about the safety of the
neighborhood given the kind of clientele adult establishments are known to attract, and
about the effect of the establishment on property values. Some of the residents also noted
that the area was already oversaturated with bars and night clubs. One resident, Francisco
Camacho, indicated that he found erotic dancing offensive. He testified that he opposed
both Six Star’s and Ferol’s proposals on the ground that erotic dancing perverts the
community and is against the teachings of Islam.
Alderman Bauman, the alderman for the district, testified in opposition to Six Star’s
applications. He mostly emphasized the concerns of the business community and their
efforts to turn the area into one focused on shopping and retail. As he explained:
There is an inherent conflict between trying to generate retail and
commercial with a gentlemen’s club. Forget the morality issue, forget the
propriety of it all, just look at the economics of it. They are somewhat
different markets. They are looking for different things by their very
definition. And you’re not going to put an American Girl’s store next to a
gentlemen’s club on Chicago Avenue and Michigan Avenue, for example.
They are conflicting markets.
You’ve heard from the downtown. The City of Milwaukee has
invested, I believe it’s $50,000 with a match from the downtown stakeholders
of another $50,000 for a $100,000 fund to attempt to catalyze downtown
4
retail investment. Again, we’re working at cross purposes. If we allow clubs
that will retard that retail development, our investments are making no sense.
Continuation of Licenses Committee Hearing Tr., Sept. 20, 2010 at 12–13, ECF No. 61-2.
Once all testimony had been taken, the Committee discussed Six Star’s
applications. Alderman Hamilton moved to recommend that the Common Council deny
the applications on the ground that granting the licenses would be contrary to the health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood. He explained that his motion was based on the
inconsistency between an erotic dance establishment and the kind of retail environment
that the neighborhood was trying to create, and also on the residents’ “resounding
opposition” to the proposal. See id. at 19–20. The Committee voted to recommend that
the Common Council deny Six Star’s applications. The vote was unanimous.
Turning to Ferol’s applications, the Committee heard testimony from eleven
witnesses who opposed the proposal. The witnesses included representatives of the
business community and residents of the neighborhood. Both the residents and the
business representatives stated that the proposal was inconsistent with a development
plan that had been adopted for the area. As one witness explained, the development plan
called for a mix of residential and retail uses, including so-called “mixed” uses in which
retail or commercial establishments occupied the first floor of a building and residential
units occupied the upper floors. See Continuation of Licenses Committee Hearing Tr.,
Sept. 20, 2010 at 22–25, ECF No. 62-1. The plan specified that the commercial uses in
the neighborhood would be “boutique-scaled,” which meant that they would be small-scale
businesses such as boutique retailers and design showrooms. Id. at 22–23. The witness
explained that the proposal for Satin involved a large facility (20,000 square feet and up
to 1,000 to 1,200 patrons per day) that was significantly out-of-scale with this focus on
5
boutique uses. The witness further explained that there was not enough parking in the
area to support a facility of that size. Other witnesses echoed this concern about adequate
parking. Still other witnesses expressed concern about the effect of the proposal on
residential property values and on neighborhood safety, and about potential noise and
traffic issues.
Alderman Witkowiak, the alderman for the district, also testified in opposition to
Ferol’s applications. He mostly reiterated the concerns expressed by the community
members who testified in opposition to Ferol’s applications. He explained that the proposal
was too large and out-of-scale for the neighborhood, that there would be inadequate
parking space to support the proposal, that the proposal was inconsistent with the
development plan for the area, and that some residents were concerned about safety and
property values.
Once all testimony had been taken, the Committee discussed Ferol’s applications.
This time, Alderman Kovacs moved to recommend that the Common Council deny them.
He cited the overwhelming objections by the residents and businesses in the neighborhood
and potential parking and traffic problems.
The Committee unanimously voted to
recommend that the Common Council deny Ferol’s applications.
The next day, September 21, 2010, the Common Council voted to accept the
Licensing Committee’s recommendations on Six Star’s and Ferol’s applications for tavern
and tavern-amusement licenses.
Approximately one year later, Six Star decided that it would attempt to operate the
Old World Third location as a “dry” gentlemen’s club—i.e., a night club that featured erotic
dance entertainment but that did not serve alcohol. Six Star thought that it needed a
theater license under Chapter 83 of the Code of Ordinances to operate such an
6
establishment, and on September 14, 2011, it applied for such a license. Pursuant to its
usual practice, the City Clerk’s office notified the alderman for the district that the
application had been filed. That was Alderman Bauman, and he instructed the City Clerk
to “hold” Six Star’s application. Because of this hold, Six Star’s application was not set for
a hearing before the Licenses Committee, and no action was ever taken on the application
before the City repealed Chapter 83.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Claims Involving Tavern and Tavern-Amusement Licenses
The plaintiffs’ primary claims are that the tavern-amusement ordinance, which,
before March 1, 2012, appeared in Chapter 90 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances,1 was
unconstitutional on its face and unconstitutionally applied to them. However, the tavernamusement ordinance did not, by itself, prevent either plaintiff from operating taverns that
featured erotic dance entertainment. Rather, the plaintiffs needed both tavern licenses and
tavern-amusement licenses to open the kind of night clubs they planned to open.2 The City
considered the plaintiffs’ applications for both of these kinds of licenses together at the
same hearing and denied them both for the same reasons. See Licenses Committee
Hearing Tr., Sept. 20, 2010, at 2, ECF No. 59-1; Continuation of Licenses Committee
Hearing Tr., Sept. 20, 2010, at 3, ECF No. 62-1. The plaintiffs have not argued that the
tavern-licensing ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and have not clearly developed
1
Before March 1, 2012, sections 90-33, 90-34, and 90-35 of the Milwaukee Code
of Ordinances pertained to tavern-amusement licenses. When I use the term “tavernamusement ordinance,” I am referring to those former sections of the Ordinances.
2
Various provisions in Chapter 90 of the Code of Ordinances pertain to tavern
licensing. Section 90-5 specifies the criteria for obtaining such a license, and when I use
terms like “tavern-licensing ordinance” or “tavern ordinance,” I am referring to that section.
7
any argument showing that it was unconstitutionally applied to them. Yet, unless plaintiffs
could show that the tavern-licensing ordinance was either unconstitutional on its face or
unconstitutionally applied to them, they would not be entitled to damages even if the
tavern-amusement ordinance were invalidated. Nonetheless, the arguments that plaintiffs
make against the tavern-amusement ordinance to a certain extent imply that the City
applied the tavern-licensing ordinance unconstitutionally, and the City does not argue that
it is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs have not brought a
proper challenge to the tavern-licensing ordinance. Thus, I consider plaintiffs to be
challenging the tavern-amusement ordinance both on its face and as-applied, and the
tavern-licensing ordinance as-applied.
Turning to these challenges, the plaintiffs’ first argument is that the City imposed a
“prior restraint” on speech without complying with the strict procedural requirements
governing prior restraints. See, e.g., FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990);
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988); Freedman v. Maryland,
380 U.S. 51 (1965). However, the Seventh Circuit rejected that very argument in Blue
Canary Corp. v. City of Milwaukee, 251 F.3d 1121 (7th Cir. 2001). There, the Seventh
Circuit considered a challenge to a City of Milwaukee tavern-licensing decision that was
in all material respects the same as the challenge the plaintiffs bring in the present case—a
challenge involving the City’s denial of a tavern license and an appropriate tavernamusement license for a tavern that wanted to present erotic entertainment.3 The court
framed the question presented as whether the City was permitted to take into account, in
3
In Blue Canary, the tavern sought renewal of its existing tavern license rather than
a new license. However, for present purposes, there is no material difference between
renewal of an existing license and denial of an application for a new license.
8
deciding whether to grant the licenses, “the character of the entertainment that the plaintiff
served with its drinks.” Id. at 1123. The plaintiff had argued that, in answering that
question, the court should treat the City’s licensing requirements as prior restraints.
However, the court rejected that argument and evaluated the City’s requirements under the
standards applicable to time, place, or manner restrictions. Id. Accordingly, in the present
case, I must treat the City’s licensing requirements as time, place, or manner restrictions
rather than as prior restraints.4 See also Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 228 F.3d 831, 851
(7th Cir. 2000) (“Licensing, though functioning as a prior restraint, is constitutionally
legitimate when it complies with the standard for time, place or manner requirements.”).
Blue Canary also establishes that a city’s decision to deny tavern licenses on the
basis of the “character” of the applicant’s proposed entertainment is, in general, a
permissible regulation of the time, place, or manner of expressive activity. As the court
explained, a city is permitted to consider the secondary effects of the entertainment, such
as noise, safety, parking and traffic problems, and the general incompatibility of the
entertainment with the normal activity of the neighborhood, when making licensing
decisions. See 251 F.3d at 1123–25. In the present case, the transcript of the licensing
hearing indicates that the City denied the plaintiffs’ license applications for reasons having
to do with these secondary effects rather than with disapproval of the content of the
proposed expressive activity. The primary reason for denying the licenses for Silk East
was that its presence in the neighborhood would have deterred the kind of retailers the
community was trying to attract. As the alderman for the district testified, a retailer like
American Girl® is unlikely to open a shop next to a gentlemen’s club. This was a
4
The plaintiffs contend that Blue Canary was wrongly decided. See Opening Br. at
31 n.4. However, as plaintiffs acknowledge, I am bound by Seventh Circuit precedent.
9
permissible basis for denying the licenses. See id. at 1124 (“Countless cases allow
municipalities to zone strip joints, adult book stores, and like erotic sites out of residential
and the classier commercial areas of the city or town. Establishments that purvey erotica,
live or pictorial, tend to be tawdry, to be offensive to many people, and to attract a dubious,
sometimes a disorderly, clientele. Liquor and sex are an explosive combination, so strip
joints that sell liquor are particularly unwelcome in respectable neighborhoods.”). Likewise,
the decisions to deny the licenses for Satin were based on its incompatibility with the
neighborhood—the community members testified that the proposal was out-of-scale and
that it would present parking, traffic, and safety issues. Again, a decision based on such
secondary effects rather than on disagreement with the content of the expressive message
qualifies as a permissible time, place, or manner regulation.5
The plaintiffs argue that the City’s decisions cannot be upheld under a secondaryeffects rationale because the City did not produce formal studies or other credible evidence
supporting its conclusion that erotic entertainment generates secondary effects. See Reply
Br. at 5–8, ECF No. 75. However, the cases on which plaintiffs rely for the proposition that
a city must produce evidence concerning secondary effects involved ordinances that, by
5
Although the vast majority of the testimony at the hearing focused on secondary
effects, at least one community member’s objection to Silk East and Satin was based, in
part, on his moral objection to erotic entertainment. See Licenses Committee Hearing Tr.,
Sept. 20, 2010 at 5–7 , ECF No. 59-1 (testimony of Francisco Camacho). However,
objections like Mr. Camacho’s were few and far between, and the record of the hearing
does not indicate that the Licenses Committee gave those objections any weight. To be
sure, the aldermen said that their decisions were based on the “overwhelming” or
“resounding” neighborhood opposition to the proposed establishments, and they did not
disclaim statements like Mr. Camacho’s, but given that the vast majority of the opposition
was based on secondary effects, I cannot conclude that the content-based objections
played a causal role in the City’s decision. I also note that, in Blue Canary, at least some
of the public opposition to the renewal of the plaintiff’s liquor license was based on “moral
disapproval of the entertainment,” 251 F.3d at 1122, yet the court found no constitutional
violation in the City’s decision not to renew the license.
10
their terms, expressly regulated erotic entertainment. See City of Los Angeles v. Alameda
Books, 535 U.S. 425 (2002), Annex Books, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 581 F.3d 460 (7th
Cir. 2009), R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford, 361 F.3d 402, 411 (7th Cir. 2004). In the
present case, neither the tavern-licensing ordinance nor the tavern-amusement ordinance
purported to regulate erotic activity specifically. Rather, those ordinances were designed
to deal with the direct effects of taverns and the secondary effects of all forms of tavern
entertainment. See Milwaukee Code of Ordinances § 90-35-1 (stating that City had found
that tavern entertainment “can be a source of noise, litter, large and unruly congregations
of people, and traffic and parking congestion that adversely affects the health, safety and
welfare of the people of the city of Milwaukee”). No authority of which I am aware holds
that a city must rely on formal studies before it may conclude that tavern entertainment has
the potential to produce secondary effects such as noise, parking, and traffic problems,
or the potential to conflict with the normal activity of a neighborhood. That conclusion
would seem to be obvious, just as it is obvious that rallies held in a public park have the
potential to generate excessive noise and other secondary effects. See Thomas v. City
Park District, 227 F.3d 921, 924 (7th Cir. 2000). Moreover, at the licensing hearing, the
City did take evidence, in the form of testimony from those in the neighborhood, before
concluding that the plaintiffs’ proposals would in fact generate undesirable secondary
effects. Blue Canary establishes that neighborhood testimony is appropriate evidence
concerning the secondary effects of a proposed form of tavern entertainment. 251 F.3d
at 1124–25. Thus, before the City denied the plaintiffs’ license applications, it did consider
appropriate evidence concerning secondary effects, and so the City’s decisions were not
inconsistent with Alameda Books and related cases.
11
The plaintiffs also argue that the City cannot satisfy the prong of the time, place, or
manner test requiring the government to leave open reasonable alternative avenues of
communication. See City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 47 (1986).6
Although the plaintiffs initially argue that the City cannot show that it left open reasonable
alternative avenues for all forms of tavern entertainment—including musical performances,
stand-up comedy, dancing, karaoke, and other forms of tavern entertainment—their focus
is on the lack of alternative avenues for erotic entertainment.7 Plaintiffs argue that, to carry
its burden as to reasonable alternatives, the City must point to parcels of property where
erotic entertainment was permitted as a matter of right rather than at the discretion of the
City’s licensing authorities. However, neither the Supreme Court nor the Seventh Circuit
has held that a time, place, or manner restriction leaves open reasonable alternative
avenues of communication only if it permits certain forms of expression as a matter of right
in designated areas. Thus, the City’s burden is not to point to sites where erotic dancing
was permitted without a license.
Rather, to satisfy the reasonable-alternatives
requirement, the City must show that it did not exercise its licensing authority in a way that
resulted in an unreasonable restriction on erotic expression.
To that end, the City has offered evidence as to the number of taverns allowed to
present erotic dance entertainment in the City of Milwaukee between 2006 and 2010.
6
Under the usual formulation of the test, time, place, or manner restrictions are
constitutional if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a substantial
governmental interest, and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of
communication. See, e.g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); City
of Renton, 475 U.S. at 46–47.
7
To the extent that plaintiffs actually mean to argue that the City did not leave open
reasonable alternative avenues for tavern entertainment in general, it is sufficient to note
that there is nothing in the record to suggest that there was a shortage of tavern
entertainment in the City of Milwaukee during the period of time for which plaintiffs seek
damages.
12
There were fifteen taverns that presented erotic entertainment on a regular basis in 2006,
fourteen in 2007, ten in 2008, twelve in 2009, and eleven in 2010. Each year, a few other
taverns offered erotic entertainment on a part-time or occasional basis. (In 2010, for
example, five taverns offered occasional erotic entertainment.) The plaintiffs contend that
these numbers are insufficient for a city with a population close to 600,000. However, no
evidence in the record indicates that any person who wanted to view erotic dance
entertainment in the City of Milwaukee between 2006 and 2010 found it unreasonably
difficult to do so.
The plaintiffs contend that even if the number of erotic dance establishments in
Milwaukee was sufficient to meet the needs of consumers of such entertainment, a time,
place, or manner restriction must also allow those who wish to present such entertainment
a reasonable opportunity to present it. That general proposition is true. See North Avenue
Novelties, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 88 F.3d 441, 444 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that, when
examining availability of reasonable alternatives, “it is necessary to focus both on the ability
of producers as a group to provide sexually explicit expression, as well as on the ability of
the public as a whole to receive it”). However, the evidence in the record does not show
that the licensing requirements left purveyors of erotic entertainment with no reasonable
opportunities to operate in the City. True, the licensing ordinance prevented the plaintiffs
from opening erotic dance establishments at their chosen locations, but the plaintiffs have
not shown that they could not have found alternative locations in the City. Of course,
because of the licensing requirements, the plaintiffs could not have known for sure whether
they would have been permitted to offer erotic dance entertainment at any specific
alternative location unless they actually applied for a license for that location and received
a decision on the application, but the plaintiffs have offered no evidence suggesting that
13
they even considered alternative sites, such as sites that were not located in the downtown
area.8 Moreover, the plaintiffs have offered no evidence from other would-be purveyors
of erotic entertainment indicating that the City’s licensing requirements prevented them
from offering erotic entertainment within the city limits. To be sure, the plaintiffs point out
that a fair number of applications for new erotic taverns were either denied or withdrawn
between 2006 and 2010, but no context is given for those denials and withdrawals (other
than those involving the plaintiffs’ applications). For example, I have not been told where
the proposed taverns would have been located, whether the proposed licensees made
reasonable efforts to find alternative locations, or whether the proposed licensees were
qualified to hold tavern licenses in the first place. Thus, based on the present record,
which includes the fact that a number of taverns featuring erotic dance entertainment
operated within the city limits during the time period relevant to this suit—including one
operated by the manager of the plaintiffs—I conclude that the City left open reasonable
alternative avenues for presenting and consuming erotic dance entertainment.
The plaintiffs also contend that the tavern and tavern-amusement ordinances
granted City officials “unbridled discretion” to determine whether to grant or deny such
licenses. “Unbridled discretion” is a phrase that derives from prior-restraint cases involving
censorship, see Southworth v. Bd. of Regents, 307 F.3d 566, 575–78 (7th Cir. 2002)
(discussing history of unbridled discretion), but it has been applied in cases in which the
prior restraint is analyzed as a time, place, or manner restriction, see Thomas v. Chicago
8
The plaintiffs have not argued that they have a right to offer erotic dance
entertainment in the downtown area, as opposed to other areas within the city limits.
Moreover, as I have already noted, “[c]ountless cases allow municipalities to zone strip
joints, adult book stores, and like erotic sites out of residential and the classier commercial
areas of the city or town.” Blue Canary, 251 F.3d at 1124.
14
Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 323 (2002). However, in either kind of case, the concern behind
the unbridled-discretion standard is censorship—a risk that the licensing authority will use
its unduly broad discretion to favor or disfavor speech based on content. Id. The standard
is usually applied in circumstances where the law at issue either explicitly involves
censorship, such as the law governing the Maryland board of censors at issue in Freedman
v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965), or when the law at issue presents a significant censorship
risk, such as when a single person is granted power over a newspaper’s ability to sell
papers, see City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub’g Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988), or a single
person is granted power to decide whether a group will be allowed to hold a rally in a public
park, see Thomas, 534 U.S. at 323–24.
In the present case, the tavern and tavern-amusement licensing requirements did
not explicitly involve censorship, and they did not present a significant censorship risk. As
discussed, the purpose of the licensing requirements was not censorship but to ensure
that a proposed form of tavern entertainment was basically compatible with the
neighborhood in which it planned to locate. Moreover, it is difficult to envision a realistic
scenario in which the Licenses Committee could have used its licensing power to favor or
disfavor specific forms of expressive tavern entertainment.
As the Seventh Circuit
recognized in Blue Canary, the City of Milwaukee is a major city rather than a small town
with a homogenous population that is likely to find certain forms of tavern expression
offensive and to want to ban them from the City. 251 F.3d at 1124. Thus, there was never
any realistic chance that the Licenses Committee would have used its licensing authority
to facilitate a campaign to ban rock music, erotic dancing, or any other form of
entertainment from the City’s taverns. It is also important to take note of the procedural
elements of the licensing ordinances, which required the Licenses Committee to hold a
15
public hearing and make its recommendation to the Common Council in writing. See
Milwaukee Code of Ordinances § 90-35-4-c; Stip. Facts ¶¶ 25–40, ECF No. 44. If the
City’s residents had found a particular form of tavern entertainment offensive and opposed
a license application for that reason, and the Licenses Committee had recommended
denial of the application for the same reason, those events would have been out in the
open and could have been remedied through an as-applied challenge. This is in contrast
to unbridled-discretion cases like City of Lakewood, in which the decisionmaker could have
rendered an as-applied challenge ineffective by denying a license without holding a hearing
or identifying the evidence on which he or she relied. 486 U.S. at 769. Thus, in the
present case, the tavern and tavern-amusement ordinances were not invalid on the ground
that they vested decisionmakers with unbridled discretion.
The plaintiffs also argue that the tavern and tavern-amusement ordinances do not
satisfy United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). In that case, the Supreme Court
held that a content-neutral regulation that has an incidental effect on expression satisfies
the First Amendment if it meets a four-pronged test: “[1] if it is within the constitutional
power of the Government; [2] if it furthers an important or substantial governmental
interest; [3] if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression;
and [4] if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than
is essential to the furtherance of that interest.” Id. at 377. Plaintiffs argue that the tavern
and tavern-amusement ordinances did not satisfy the first prong of the O’Brien test—that
the ordinances be “within the constitutional power of the Government”—and they give two
reasons in support of this argument: (1) the ordinances were contrary to Chapter 125 of
the Wisconsin Statutes, which relates to alcoholic beverages, and (2) the ordinances were
de facto zoning regulations that were not passed pursuant to the state-law procedures that
16
apply to zoning regulations. In making these arguments, the plaintiffs assume that
O’Brien’s first prong allows a court to examine whether a municipality complied with state
law when passing the regulation at issue. However, I can find no authority that supports
this assumption. O’Brien’s first prong is rarely discussed, but there is no indication that it
was meant to “constitutionalize” matters of state law.9 Rather, when courts apply O’Brien’s
first prong to a municipal regulation, they ask only whether the regulation at issue is of a
kind that is within the “general police powers” of a municipality. See Ben’s Bar, Inc. v. Vill.
of Somerset, 316 F.3d 702, 722–23 (7th Cir. 2003). In the present case, there is no
question that regulating the locations of taverns and the time, place and manner of tavern
entertainment is within the general police powers of a municipality. Id. at 722 (holding that
a municipality’s “regulation of alcohol sales and consumption in ‘inappropriate locations’
is clearly within its general police powers”); Blue Canary, 251 F.3d at 1124. To the extent
plaintiffs believe that the City failed to comply with state law when passing the specific
ordinances at issue, they may have a claim against the City under state law. However, in
the present case, the plaintiffs have brought no state-law claims and proceed only under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Fourth Amended and Supplemental Complaint ¶ 101, ECF No. 36.
Thus, these matters of state law are not subject to review in this case.
9
Plaintiffs cite various cases in which courts reviewed municipal ordinances for
compliance with state laws, but in none of those cases did the court purport to be applying
the O’Brien test. Instead, it appears that the courts were adjudicating state-law claims.
See, e.g., Ravenna Road Mgmt. v. City of Twinsburg, 450 F. Supp. 2d 782, 785–86 (N.D.
Ohio 2006); Northshor Experience, Inc. v. City of Duluth, 442 F. Supp. 2d 713, 718–19 (D.
Minn. 2006); Fifth Column v. Vill. of Valley View, 100 F. Supp. 2d 493, 507 (N.D. Ohio
1998); S. Entm’t Co. of Florida v. City of Boynton Beach, 736 F. Supp. 1094, 1101–02
(S.D. Fla. 1990); City of Ann Arbor v. Danish News Co., 361 N.W.2d 722, 774–76 (Mich.
Ct. App. 1984).
17
Finally, Six Star argues that the City’s decision to deny its license applications was
“discriminatory” because the City ultimately granted tavern and tavern-amusement licenses
for the Old World Third premises to another applicant, Robert Smith. Six Star contends
that the only difference between its proposal and Smith’s proposal was that Smith did not
propose to offer erotic entertainment. That appears to be true, but as discussed, the City
was allowed to base its decision on “the character of the entertainment” that Six Star
intended to present and whether such entertainment was compatible with the normal
activity of the neighborhood. Blue Canary, 251 F.3d at 1123. Here, the decision to permit
Smith’s tavern but exclude Six Star’s gentlemen’s club is explainable by the fact that the
presence of an ordinary tavern in the neighborhood would not have deterred respectable
retailers from moving in, whereas the presence of a gentlemen’s club would have. Thus,
the City’s having granted tavern and tavern-amusement licenses for the Old World Third
premises to a different applicant does not show that the decision to deny Six Star’s
applications for the same licenses was based on impermissible factors.
Accordingly, the City’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claims involving
the tavern and tavern-amusement ordinances will be granted.
B.
Theater Ordinance
Former § 83-1-2 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances stated that “[n]o person, firm
or corporation . . . shall keep, maintain, conduct or operate for gain or profit, any theater
or moving picture house in the city without first obtaining a license therefore.” Section 831-1-b defined “theater” as “any edifice, or parts thereof, used for the purposes of dramatic
or operatic or other exhibitions, plays or performances for admission to which remuneration
or any other consideration is paid, charged or received.” Section 83-1-5-b stated that an
application for a theater license “shall be granted when the following requirements are met:
18
the building, structure or premises for which the license is sought must conform in all
respects to the provisions of this section and to the law of this state and the ordinances of
the city applying to such buildings, structures, or premises.”
In September 2011, Six Star applied for a license to operate the Old World Third
location as a theater called the Outer Limits Gentlemen’s Club. The theater would have
offered erotic dance entertainment but no alcohol. It is undisputed that, pursuant to a
“hold” placed on Six Star’s application by Alderman Bauman, no decision was ever made
on Six Star’s application. The theater ordinance was repealed effective March 1, 2012.
The plaintiffs claim that former Chapter 83 was unconstitutional on its face and was
unconstitutionally applied to Six Star. I begin with Six Star’s as-applied challenge, which
hinges on the fact that the City dragged its heels and never reached any decision on the
licensing application before repealing the theater ordinance.10 Numerous cases recognize
that a licensing or permitting scheme that touches upon expression violates the First
Amendment when it allows the government to unreasonably delay or postpone a decision
on whether to grant or deny a license. See, e.g., City of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 771;
Freedman, 380 U.S. at 57–58; Vodak v. City of Chicago, 639 F.3d 738, 749 (7th Cir. 2011);
Thomas, 227 F.3d at 927–28. Here, the theater ordinance was a regulation governing the
time, place, or manner of expressive activity—namely, “dramatic or operatic or other
exhibitions, plays or performances,” § 83-1-1-b. Thus, to defeat Six Star’s as-applied
challenge, the City must offer a legitimate explanation for its failure to render a prompt
10
The City argues that Six Star’s claim against Chapter 83 is moot because that
ordinance has been repealed. However, Six Star seeks damages for the period in which
Chapter 83 prevented it from operating the Outer Limits Gentleman’s Club as a theater,
and so its claim is not moot. See Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t
of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 608–09 (2001).
19
decision on Six Star’s application to engage in such expressive activity at the Old World
Third location.
The City’s primary argument is that Six Star applied for the wrong kind of license.
It contends that, in September 2011, the license required for offering erotic dance
entertainment in an establishment that does not serve alcohol was the public entertainment
club license required by Milwaukee Code of Ordinances § 108-5-1-a (2010). However,
even if that were true, it would not have justified the City’s failure to render a decision on
Six Star’s application. If the City believed that Six Star had applied for the wrong license,
it should have denied the application on that ground. Then, if Six Star thought it had
applied for the correct license, it could have challenged the City’s decision in an
appropriate legal action.
In any event, the facts in the record do not establish that Six Star applied for the
wrong type of license. The public entertainment club ordinance required any person who
wanted to offer “public entertainment” to obtain an appropriate license or permit.
Milwaukee Code of Ordinances § 108-5-1-a (2010). “Public entertainment” was defined
as “any entertainment of any nature or description to which the public generally may gain
admission, whether with or without the payment of a fee.” Id. § 108-3-3. This definition
included plays and other forms of entertainment that fell within the scope of the theater
ordinance. However, one did not need both a theater license and a public entertainment
club license to offer the kind of entertainment that fell within the scope of the theater
ordinance. This was so because the public entertainment club ordinance stated that the
holder of a theater license did not need to obtain a public entertainment club license. Id.
§ 108-5-2-c. Moreover, nothing in either ordinance indicated that an establishment that
wanted to offer erotic dance entertainment could not have operated under a theater license
20
instead of a public entertainment club license.11 The repealed ordinances allowed Six Star
to choose which type of license it wanted, and it chose to apply for a theater license.
Accordingly, the City could not have denied Six Star’s application for a theater license on
the ground that Six Star should have applied for a public entertainment club license
instead.12
Accordingly, because the City has offered no legitimate explanation for its failure to
render a prompt decision on Six Star’s application for a theater license, plaintiffs’ motion
for summary judgment on the issue of whether the theater ordinance was unconstitutionally
applied to it will be granted. This result eliminates the need to address Six Star’s facial
challenge to the repealed ordinance.
There is still the matter of Ferol’s facial challenge to the theater ordinance. Ferol
never applied for a license under Chapter 83. However, Ferol contends that because the
theater ordinance was a prior restraint, it has standing to challenge the ordinance and to
obtain damages. As a general matter, it is true that a plaintiff can bring a facial challenge
to an allegedly unconstitutional licensing regulation without applying for a license. See City
of Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 755–56. However, in the present case, the ordinance has been
11
The City points out that, in 2010, the only establishments that held theater licenses
under Chapter 83 were “traditional, commonly-defined theaters featuring fixed seating
facing a permanent stage offering dramatic performances, plays and the like.” See Pl’s
Resp. to City’s PFOF ¶ 6, ECF No. 72. However, that fact is irrelevant, since there was
nothing in Chapter 83 that required an establishment to conform to this description in order
to obtain a theater license.
12
The City also points out that, at the time Six Star applied for a theater license,
Robert Smith was already operating his tavern at the Old World Third location. However,
the City does not explain why that mattered. See City’s Response Br. at 48–49, ECF No.
55. Apparently, Six Star had an agreement with Smith under which Smith would vacate
the premises if Six Star had been able to obtain a license to operate as either a tavern or
a theater. Nothing in Chapter 83 suggests that the City needed to know this in order to
process Six Star’s application for a theater license.
21
repealed, and Ferol’s Article III standing depends on its having sustained damages as a
result of Chapter 83's existence. Yet, the summary-judgment record contains no affidavit
or other evidence indicating that Ferol had concrete plans to open a dry gentlemen’s club
(as opposed to a tavern) at the Pittsburgh Avenue location or any other location in the City
of Milwaukee during the time that Chapter 83 was in force. Thus, I do not see how Ferol
could have been damaged by the mere existence of Chapter 83, and so I am not satisfied
that Ferol has standing to challenge Chapter 83 on its face. See Summers v. Earth Island
Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 499 (2009) (“it is well established that the court has an independent
obligation to assure that standing exists, regardless of whether it is challenged by any of
the parties”). Therefore, I will not adjudicate Ferol’s facial challenge to Chapter 83 on the
merits at this time. However, should Ferol believe that it can establish Article III standing,
it may submit appropriate affidavits to that effect and I will reconsider this ruling.
C.
Public Entertainment Club Ordinance
The remaining claims are the plaintiffs’ facial challenges to the former public
entertainment club ordinance, which appeared in Chapter 108 of the Milwaukee Code of
Ordinances. As already discussed in the context of plaintiffs’ claims involving the theater
ordinance, Chapter 108 provided that no person could offer any form of public
entertainment without obtaining either a public entertainment club license or a theater
license. Having ruled that Six Star is entitled to damages in connection with its as-applied
challenge to the theater ordinance, I do not need to separately consider Six Star’s facial
challenge to the public entertainment club ordinance, as both claims involve the same pool
of damages—namely, damages attributable to Six Star’s inability to offer erotic dance
entertainment without also serving alcohol at the Old World Third location. Moreover,
because the record contains no affidavits or other evidence indicating that Ferol had any
22
concrete plans to offer erotic dance entertainment without also serving alcohol at the
Pittsburgh Avenue location or any other location during the time that the public
entertainment club license was in force, I am not satisfied that Ferol has Article III standing
to bring a facial challenge to the public entertainment club ordinance. See Summers, 555
U.S. at 499. Accordingly, I do not need to reach the merits of plaintiffs’ facial challenges
to Chapter 108 at this time. Again, if Ferol believes that it can establish Article III standing,
it may submit appropriate affidavits and I will reconsider this ruling.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons states, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and that defendant’s motion for
summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment
is granted to the City on plaintiffs’ claims involving the tavern and tavern-amusement
ordinances. Summary judgment is granted to Six Star on the issue of the City’s liability for
damages relating to Six Star’s inability to offer erotic dance entertainment without also
serving alcohol at the Old World Third location. I do not reach the merits of Ferol’s claims
involving the theater ordinance and the public entertainment club ordinance. If Ferol
believes that it can prove that it suffered damages that are traceable to those ordinances,
then it may attempt to do so during further proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ motions to file briefs that exceed the
page limitations [ECF Nos. 48 & 54] are GRANTED.
FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that an in-person status conference will be held on April
11, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. to discuss further proceedings.
23
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 18th day of March 2013.
s/ Lynn Adelman
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge
24
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?