Summary
holding district court lacked jurisdiction to reverse injunctive relief already on appeal
Summary of this case from City of Chi. v. SessionsOpinion
Nos. 98-20255, 98-20885.
May 28, 2004.
Gerald E. Hopkins, Langtry, TX, for N.W. Enterprises Inc., Amethyst Enterprises, Inc., Campus Investments Inc. and 1431 West 18th, Inc.
John Haldane Weston, G. Randall Garrou, Weston, Garrou DeWitt, Los Angeles, CA, Joe William Meyer, Meyer, Knight Williams, Houston, TX, David Allen Furlow, Thompson Knight, Houston, TX, for FTU Inc., DAJO Inc., Ice Embassy Inc., Texas Richmond Corp., Andrea Stafford, Frank I. Kent, Naomi L. Parrish, Ann Marie Hasselbach, Jeanne L. Grigsby, Susan Boyle, Dana Lynn Thomas, Kimberly Ann Dushman, Michelle Hadley, Colleen Cloer, Leah Marie Wilson, Carla K. Eaton, Cheryl Thompson, Robert G. Furey, HFR Enterprises Inc., Andrea Hill, Gina Oliver, Heather Weldin, Charisma Barry, Donna Soto and Andrea Allbright Marco.
John E. Hill, Houston, TX, for Elgin Inv. Co. Ltd.
Mike J. DeGeurin, Foreman, DeGeurin, Nugent Gerger, Donald B. McFall, McFall, Sherwood Breitbeil, Joseph Matthew Grant, The Grant Law Firm, Houston, TX, for AHD Houston Inc., Jane Doe One, Jane Doe Two and D. Houston, Inc.
Becki M. Fahle, John J. Fahle, III, Carter Fahle, San Antonio, TX, for Dee Dee Enterprises Inc., 9924 I-45 North Inc., HI-Houston Inc. and Charles Wesley Inc.
Philip W. Boyko, Houston, TX, for Mark Thai Do and Norman S. Harrison.
L. Paul Decuir, Jr., Channelview, TX, for DSSS Aria Merica Inc.
Beatrice A. Mladenka-Fowler, Mladenka-Fowler Associates, Gilbert D. Douglas, Donna L. Edmundson, The City of Houston, Legal Dept., Houston, TX, Michael Acuna, Dallas, TX, for City of Houston.
Gerald E. Hopkins, Langtry, TX, for Vista Video Corp. and Douglas Skyock.
Nelson T. Hensley, Houston, TX, for Chil Soung Inc., Daris Inc., GNCD Inc., Rude Dog II, Inc., Lone Starr Multi Theatres Inc., AVW Inc., CLMS Inc., C-Snap Inc., East Bay Inc., TNT Services Inc., 9834 Jensen Inc., 8503 North Freeway Inc., Corporate Clubs of Texas Inc., U.S. Clubs Inc., DHL Inc., Cherie Feldman, Eve Enterprises Inc., Long Tran, Nien X. Nguyen, WMF Investments Inc., AKM Inc., DHR Inc., Panah Inc., R R Entertainment Inc., SSD Enterprises Inc., HHE Inc., F R Club Inc., ATCOMM Services Inc., Houman Shaghagi, Southeast Texas Ventures, KMRC Inc., Aris Mylonas, MK Club Restaurants Inc., 10128 TDC 1 Inc., Southwest Clubco Inc., Duncan Burch Inc., Obsession Cabaret Inc., Norman R. Glenn, James Drew, Pete Caserly, A to X Video, Hughes St. Clair Inc., Quasar Intern. Inc., Video News Inc., Chuck Wesley, Chuck Wesley Inc., Jacob Borenstein, 12851-59 Westheimer Inc., 608 West Mt. Houston Inc., Gino A. Barone, Heaven Video News, Airline Video and Thai Co., City Wide Group Inc., ANS Inc., Northstar Inc., Northeast Inc., Eastex 24-Hour Newsstand, G.W. Rodgers, R. Glass, G. Humphrey, D.L. Stoneham, L.J. Putterman, M. Roberts, V.L. Auzston, J.J. Langan, H. Perez, A. Lucke, Y. Hinojosa, A.N. McMillen, B. Webb, R. Sternes, S. Mongonia, K. Martin, N. Roberts, V. Gobea, D. Quick, K. Warren, R. Sanchez, S. Jurek, N. Espinoza, C. Emery, K. Martin, C. Combs, J. Dampier, W. Kalinowski, J. Crenshaw, L.M. Bates, H. Mactavish, T. Dove, E. Castillo, K.K. Hannan, C.J. Sharpe, A.A. Cook, N. Bailey, T.R. King, L.B. Meagher, N. Henry, A. Bailey, D. Dodson, J. Suarez, A.N. McMillan, K. Rosenberry, C. Garcia, M. Fisher, D.M. Muenzler, T.J. Oakley, D. Carswell, A. Kelly, T. Western, K.A. Rader, L. Phillips, T. Jones, A. Gibson, G. Pierce, N. Neuenfeldt, T. Allen, S.L. Whittneburg, P.A. Buffin, C. Vaughn, T.L. Aldape, S.Y. Noreno, L. Tauarez, T. Dardas, N. Barry, T. Standride, J.D. Burden, S.S. Salazar, H.L. Lococo, S. Brady, S. Nnoli, E.I. Street, D. Jorgenson, D.G. Lewis, P.Z. German, J.M. Rogers, Jr., B. Templemire, R. Duncan, J. Easterwood, J.C. Acres, W. Templemire, Jr., Trumps Inc., Andrew Sefia and XTC Cabaret Inc.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
ORDER ON REHEARING
(Opinion Nov. 25, 2003, 5th Cir., 352 F.3d 162)
Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
The court, having carefully considered the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc filed on behalf of sexually oriented businesses and entertainers in this case, GRANTS them IN PART and DENIES IN PART as follows:
1. We agree with the argument of FTU appellees that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order of reconsideration in August 1998, partially reversing the injunctive relief that it granted on February 18, 1998, because this court had already obtained appellate jurisdiction over the same issues through the City's timely filed notice of appeal. The specifics of this jurisdictional reasoning need not be related here.
Because FTU is correct, it follows that the introductory paragraph of Section IV and a part of IV.C of the panel opinion, see 352 F.3d at 192, 196-97, must be vacated only to the extent that those discussions appear to "affirm" the district court decision, entered on reconsideration, which upheld the requirement that SOB entertainers wear and conspicuously display a city-issued identification card while performing. Instead, the proper disposition is that we REVERSE the court's earlier-issued injunction against enforcement of that requirement. See N.W. Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. City of Houston, 27 F.Supp.2d 754 at 848-50 (S.D.Tex. 1998) (striking the provision). We REVERSE, and VACATE the injunction, because that provision of the Ordinance, viewed under a standard of intermediate scrutiny, is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest in ensuring that all entertainers are properly licensed and that their licensure can be ascertained without interrupting the performances. More precisely, we concur that "an important goal of the new Ordinance was to allow police officers to enforce the law in adult businesses from a distance, without having to get themselves involved in illegal activity." See 27 F.Supp.2d at 908. We uphold this aspect of the Ordinance essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its (ineffective) reconsideration order. See 27 F.Supp.2d at 907-09 and 914-17.
FTU additionally argues that before upholding this provision, we ought to permit further briefing, as this precise issue was not briefed on the merits on appeal. At this point, given the hundreds of pages of briefing already presented to this court, and the incredibly thorough briefing before and reasoning of the district court in the case, including on this precise issue, further substantive briefing would be a waste of time.
2. In all other respects, the Petitions for Rehearing are DENIED, and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (FED. R.APP. P. and 5TH CIR. R. 35), the Petitions for Rehearing En Banc are also DENIED.
Judge Smith did not participate in the consideration of the Petitions for Rehearing En Banc.