Curves, LLC v. Spalding County, Georgia
685 F.3d 1284
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Curves operated as a Georgia nightclub licensed to sell alcohol in Spalding County and began nude dancing in 2007.
- County ordinances prohibited nude dancing where alcohol is sold; Curves challenged both Original Alcohol and Original Adult Ordinances.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on First Amendment and related claims; Curves appealed.
- County repealed the original ordinances on Aug. 23–28, 2007 and enacted Amended Alcohol (6-1071) and Amended Adult (6-1071) ordinances, effective Aug. 28, 2007.
- Curves later amended its complaint alleging First Amendment violations and state/federal malicious arrest/prosecution claims; District Court again granted summary judgment for Defendants.
- Court addresses retroactive recusal/vacatur requests related to former Judge Camp and reviews the amended ordinances de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive recusal and vacatur of summary judgment | Plaintiffs argue Judge Camp’s conduct warrants recusal and vacatur. | No evidence of bias; recusal not required; de novo review supports upholding judgment. | No retroactive recusal or vacatur required. |
| Constitutionality of Amended Alcohol Ordinance under O’Brien | Amended Alcohol Ordinance targets nude dancing, violating First Amendment. | Ordinance is content-neutral and supports substantial governmental interest. | Constitutional under O’Brien four-part test. |
| Overbreadth challenge to Amended Alcohol Ordinance | Provisions, via 6-1071(f), overly broad definitions threaten free speech. | Mainstream exception and challenged definitions do not render statute overbroad. | Not unconstitutionally overbroad. |
| Vagueness challenge to Amended Alcohol Ordinance | Amended Alcohol Ordinance vague regarding prohibitions. | Challenge not adequately raised; waived. | Waived; no ruling on vagueness. |
| Constitutionality of Original Adult/Alcohol Ordinances | Original versions unconstitutional as to same conduct. | Original 6-3013 severable; substantially similar prohibitions. | Original 6-3013 severable and upheld; no ruling on Original Alcohol. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sammy’s of Mobile, Ltd. v. City of Mobile, 140 F.3d 993 (11th Cir. 1998) (substantial government interest in regulating secondary effects; four-part test applications)
- Wise Enterprises, Inc. v. Unified Gov’t of Athens-Clarke Cty., 217 F.3d 1360 (11th Cir. 2000) (content-neutral restrictions on nude dancing relating to alcohol)
- Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton Cty., 596 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2010) (O’Brien test applied to nude-dancing-while-selling-alcohol bans)
- Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004) (malicious prosecution; probable cause and malice elements)
- S. Fla. Free Beaches, Inc. v. City of Miami, 734 F.2d 608 (11th Cir. 1984) (principle against ruling on unnecessary constitutional issues)
- Artistic Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2003) (distinguishable from challenged definitions in Amended Alcohol Ordinance)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) (overbreadth cautions and limits on invalidating statutes)
- Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000) (recusal standards and bias considerations)