Summary
In Harris News, an adult entertainment establishment and a city entered an agreement resolving litigation over the constitutionality of the city's adult entertainment code.
Summary of this case from Your Dreams, Inc. v. City of Palm BayOpinion
EP-00-CA-199-DB
March 26, 2001
ORDER
On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff Harris News Inc.'s "Motion for New Trial," filed in the above-captioned cause on August 24, 2000. Defendants filed a Response on September 13, 2000. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff's motion should be denied for the reasons that follow.
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 1998, Harris News, Inc. ("Harris News"), owner of the Arcade Adult Video Store, located in Sunland Park, New Mexico, filed an Original Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, cause number CIV-98-1490-JC/JHG, seeking to enjoin the City of Sunland Park, New Mexico, ("Sunland Park") and its employees from enforcing a city zoning ordinance which purports to regulate the zoning of sexually oriented businesses. On May 25, 1999, the parties in that action executed a Stipulation of Dismissal, to which they attached a copy of their settlement agreement ("the Settlement Agreement"). Accordingly, by Order of Dismissal entered May 28, 1999, the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
Subsequently, on May 26, 2000, Sunland Park filed suit in New Mexico state court, cause CIV-2000-587, seeking injunctive relief on the ground that Harris News had allegedly violated both the city's zoning ordinance and the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, Sunland Park alleged that Harris News had introduced live nude dancing at its Arcade Adult Video Store without first obtaining a permit authorizing such activities. Additionally, Sunland Park alleged that Harris News had violated the Settlement Agreement by emblazoning in large letters, on the side of a large-panel truck parked in its parking lot, the words "ADULT VIDEO." The state court granted Sunland Park's application for a preliminary injunction.
Thereafter, while Sunland Park's suit was pending in New Mexico state court, Harris News commenced the instant action in this Court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief on the ground that Sunland Park's efforts to enforce a municipal sign ordinance violates Plaintiff's constitutional rights because, among other reasons, it creates a system of prior restraint and is unconstitutionally vague. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that the truck in question has been parked at all relevant times in the state of Texas, outside the jurisdiction of Sunland Park. By Order entered July 6, 2000, this Court granted a temporary restraining order enjoining Sunland Park from enforcing its ordinance against Plaintiff or against any vehicle parked in any portion of Plaintiff's parking lot situated in the state of Texas.
Plaintiff alleges that while the store's structure is located in New Mexico, the store's parking lot is located entirely within the state of Texas.
On July 14, 2000, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Plainitff's application for preliminary injunction and, after due consideration, found that Plaintiff had not shown that an injunction was warranted. Accordingly, by Order entered August 14, 2000, this Court dissolved the temporary restraining order and dismissed the case. The instant motion followed.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff brings the instant motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), which provides that "a new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or any of the issues . . . (2) in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States." FED. R. CIV. P. 59(a). "Motions for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence. These motions cannot be used to raise arguments which could, and should, have been made before the judgment issued." Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986) (internal citations omitted) accord Simon v. United States, 891 F.2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1990).
Plaintiff seeks a new trial on the ground that the Court based its ruling upon the representations of Defense counsel, to which Plaintiff's counsel was not given an opportunity to respond. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the evidence presented at the hearing supports Plaintiff's argument that it is entitled to the relief requested, particularly since it established that failure to grant injunctive relief would result in irreparable injury. Plaintiff additionally challenges the Court's ruling that Harris News had not suffered, as it alleged, a constitutional injury but rather, that it had found itself in a contractual dispute with Defendants.
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff fails to show that there has been a manifest error of law or fact or that it intends to present newly discovered evidence. The Court denied Plaintiff's application for preliminary injunction and dismissed the case because it found that Plaintiff had no standing to challenge the Sunland Park ordinance. Specifically, the Court found that a temporary injunction had issued in New Mexico, by a court which had determined, at least preliminarily, that Harris News had violated the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Harris News bore the burden of showing that the restrictions of which it complained fell outside the scope of the Settlement Agreement and, therefore, implicated its constitutional rights. Because Plaintiff failed to meets this burden, the Court could find no threat of irreparable injury, thus precluding the entry of a preliminary injunction. Moreover, since Plaintiff could show no injury, the Court found that Harris News had no standing to litigate its remaining claims.
A. Injunctive Relief
A Court may enter a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 when the moving party demonstrates (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the threatened injury to the defendant; and (4) that granting the injunction will not disserve the public interest See, e.g., Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. F.D.I.C., 992 F.2d 545, 551 (5th Cir. 1993).
It is a fundamental rule of judicial restraint that "[p]rior to reaching any constitutional questions, federal courts must [first] consider nonconstitutional grounds for decision." Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846, 853, 105 S.Ct. 2992, 2997, 86 L.Ed.2d 664 (1985). At the July 14, 2000, hearing, Plaintiff urged the Court to enjoin Sunland Park from enforcing its ordinance on the grounds that the ordinance violates the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in that it attempts to regulate speech based on content, that it creates a system of prior restraint on activity protected by the First Amendment, and that it fails to limit the discretion of the municipality in granting licenses to display certain signs. Plaintiff also alleged that its right to due process was being violated to the extent that Sunland Park was attempting to enforce its local ordinance on property situated in Texas. Finally, Plaintiff argued that Sunland Park was enforcing the ordinance selectively, in retaliation against Plaintiff's efforts to exercise its right to free speech.
The Court notes that in support of this argument, Plaintiff provides the Court with nothing more than excerpts of the offending ordinance. Even if the Court were compelled to make a ruling with regard to Plaintiff's constitutional claims, Harris News cannot possibly expect the Court to make such a determination based on nothing more than wisps of information.
Plaintiff insists in its Motion for New Trial that the relief it requests in this Court concerns only the enforcement of Sunland Park's sign ordinance across a state line. The Court notes that Plaintiff's Original Complaint seeks much broader relief than this, insofar as Harris News urges the Court for a determination with regard to the constitutionality of the ordinance.
In support of its application for preliminary injunction, Harris News argued that the alleged constitutional harms constitute irreparable injury as a matter of law. While that may be true as a general proposition, the Court, in considering Plaintiff's arguments at the July 14, 2000, hearing, was not convinced of Plaintiff's analysis.
The Court first looked at the nonconstitutional matters raised by the pleadings and found that Harris News had contractually agreed to limit the exercise of certain of its constitutional rights through the Settlement Agreement. In so finding, the Court contemplated that the rights Harris News wished to safeguard could well be subsumed by the contractual agreement between Harris News and Sunland Park. That matter was before the state court in New Mexico, which had then issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Harris News from engaging in business activities that violate both the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the terms of the Sunland Park sign ordinance. Since that court had determined, at least as a preliminary matter, that the rights which the ordinance allegedly offended fell under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, this Court found no reason to presume that they did not. With this in mind, the Court found that failure to issue a preliminary injunction would not result in irreparable injury, since Plaintiff had contractually agreed to limit the rights it wished this Court to protect. Because Plaintiff failed to make the fundamental showing that it would suffer irreparable harm, the Court denied its application for preliminary injunction.
The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's contention that the suit pending in New Mexico state court has no relation to the instant lawsuit. Sunland Park brought suit in New Mexico state court in order to clarify and enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Specifically, Defendants argue that the Settlement Agreement imposes limitations on the parties themselves and not merely on the property located in New Mexico. Plaintiff urged this Court to enjoin Defendants from enforcing a sign ordinance which allegedly violates its constitutional rights. If indeed the Settlement Agreement subsumes those constitutional rights, which the Court believes it does, then this Court has nothing to adjudicate.
B. Declaratory Relief
Plaintiff additionally sought a declaratory judgment from this Court, declaring Sunland Park's sign ordinance unconstitutional and void on its face and as applied. In support of this request for relief, Plaintiff laid out in its Original Complaint the same arguments against the ordinance that it put forth in support of its application for a preliminary injunction. At the July 14, 2000, hearing, the Court found that Plaintiff did not have standing to litigate the matter.
In considering the doctrine of standing, a court must determine whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute. The standing doctrine requires, among other things, that a litigant have a "a distinct and palpable injury." Warth v. Sedlin, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 2206, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). "A federal court's jurisdiction can be invoked only when the plaintiff himself has suffered `some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action. . . .'" Id., 422 U.S. at 499, 95 S.Ct. at 2205. Essentially, the standing question is "whether the constitutional or statutory provision on which the claim rests properly can be understood as granting persons in the plaintiff's position a right to judicial relief." Id., 422 U.S. at 500, 95 S.Ct. at 2206.
At the July 14, 2000, hearing, the Court found that Plaintiff had not shown that it had suffered any threatened or actual injury. While the ordinance in question may well be overbroad and create a system of prior restraint, Harris News did not prove to this Court that these were the injuries it had itself suffered. A state court in New Mexico found, at least as a preliminary matter, that those rights which Plaintiff sought to vindicate had been contractually limited by Harris News itself. Since the terms of the Settlement Agreement were in dispute, and since a state court was adjudicating the very question of which rights Harris News had in fact agreed to limit, the Court found that Plaintiff had not suffered constitutional injury, but rather, had found itself in a dispute with Defendants over a contractual agreement. Since Plaintiff had shown no constitutional injury, the Court found that Harris News did not have standing to litigate the matter before this Court.
In sum, Plaintiff failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm or that it had actually been injured by the restrictions of which it complained. Accordingly, because it failed to demonstrate the four elements required for a court to enter a preliminary injunction, the Court denied Plaintiff's aplication for preliminary injunction. Additionally, because the Court found that Plaintiff lacked standing to litigate the matter, it dismissed the case. Since then, Plaintiff has not presented new evidence or shown the Court that there has been a manifest error of law or fact. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the instant motion should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Harris News, Inc.'s Motion for New Trial is DENIED.