Thursday, June 29, 2006

Home About Us Join FSC Contact Us FSC Auction Events Search
Contact Congress
Volunteer
Register To Vote
Letter Writing Campaigns
Contribute
Reward For Info
Tell A Friend
Banners
Addiction to Porn
First Amendment
utah litigation
Fourth Amendment
2257
.XXX TLD
Pence Amendment
Secondary Effects
Press Releases
Headlines
Reports
News Links
News Links
Case Law
Free Speakers
Free Speech X-Press



Membership Services Media Center Legislative Center Court Cases Consumer Resources Attorney Referral Service

Headlines Back to previous page Printer friendly version Send to a friend

update member info / renewals

Calif. Supreme Court to Decide Topless Club’s Jury Award
By: Rhett Pardon (Courtesy of XBIZ.com)
Posted: 8/31/2006

San Francisco — California’s highest court has decided to review the extent of a city’s responsibility when it obtained a preliminary injunction against an adult cabaret but eventually lost its case.

Wednesday’s order focuses on a jury award of $1.4 million for damages incurred by the owner of San Bernardino’s The Flesh Club after the court ordered it to close down because the club violated a zoning ordinance and deemed it a public nuisance.

Manta Management Corp., the owners of the property, were issued a conditional use permit in 1993 for the operation of a nightclub to feature live, non-erotic entertainment and dancing in a commercial area.

A year later, the club was renamed and began featuring topless dancers.

The city attorney promptly brought an action alleging the topless club constituted a public nuisance, seeking to abate it through preliminary and permanent injunctions. San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Carl Davis granted the city’s motion for preliminary injunction and ordered Manta to cease topless performances.

Manta appealed the order granting the preliminary injunction and cross-complained against the city for declaratory relief and damages.

The cross-complaint included several state causes of action and a cause of action alleging that the “ordinances and code provisions and actions” of the city violated its civil rights under the federal and state constitutions.

Davis later ruled that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid because it neither served a substantial governmental interest nor allowed for reasonable alternative avenues of free speech. He dissolved the preliminary injunction.

In the subsequent trial, a jury awarded Manta $1.4 million in damages for lost profits.

A California appeal court later sided with Manta and approved the damages claim against San Bernardino.

“Just as the act of seeking an injunction maliciously and without probable cause is a tort, so too is the act of seeking and obtaining an injunction to enforce an unconstitutional ordinance,” Judge Art W. McKinster said.


###
 











Privacy PolicyTerms and ConditionsContact UsSite MapFrequently Asked Questions

Copyright © 2006, The Free Speech Coalition except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved worldwide.