Fantasysrus 2, L.L.C. v. City of East Grand Forks, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1024

Fantasysrus operated Fantasys in a C-2 highway commercial district and planned to sell lingerie, club wear, and some sexually oriented products in a separate room (<10% of space).
City determined the sale of sexually oriented devices constitutes an Adult Use under the zoning code, requiring a special use permit.
Adult uses are permitted only in the 1-2 district, not in the C-2 district where Fantasys is located.
On May 9, 2012, the City refused a certificate of occupancy, denying Fantasys permission to open for sale of adult items.
Fantasysrus filed a §1983 civil rights action on May 16, 2012 seeking a preliminary injunction and waiver of Rule 65(c) security; the City argued for Younger abstention.
The Court ultimately declined to apply Younger abstention and granted the preliminary injunction and waived security.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Younger abstention applies here	Fantasysrus argues no ongoing state proceeding exists.	City argues there is an ongoing or potential state review process that warrants abstention.	Younger abstention inappropriate; no ongoing state proceedings.
Whether Fantasysrus is likely to succeed on merits against the ordinance	Ordinance is vague and overbroad, and allows unbridled discretion.	Ordinance is not vague; First Amendment claims lack merit.	Fantasysrus likely to succeed on vagueness and First Amendment challenges.
Whether a preliminary injunction should issue under Dataphase factors	Factors favor preserving the status quo and protecting First Amendment rights.	Injunctive relief would undermine valid zoning enforcement and regulatory interests.	All Dataphase factors favor granting the injunction.
Whether to waive the Rule 65(c) security requirement	No demonstrable harm to City from a temporary injunction.	(No explicit objection raised in record.)	Rule 65(c) security waived.

Night Clubs, Inc. v. Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475 (8th Cir.1998) (standard Younger abstention framework and state interest considerations)
Alleghany Corp. v. Pomeroy, 898 F.2d 1314 (8th Cir.1990) (coercive/remedial distinction in abstention analysis)
Cedar Rapids Cellular Tel., L.P. v. Miller, 280 F.3d 874 (8th Cir.2002) (monitors abstention in §1983 actions; ongoing proceedings)
Planned Parenthood of Greater la., Inc. v. Atchison, 126 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir.1997) (abstention inappropriate when no coercive state proceeding pending)
Doctor John's, Inc. v. Sioux City, 467 F. Supp. 2d 925 (N.D. Iowa 2006) (First Amendment protections may apply to ‘sex shop’ definitions lacking clarity)