Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. of Georgia v. City of Sandy Springs, Georgia
868 F.3d 1248
11th Cir.2017Background
- Sandy Springs, GA enacted an ordinance (2009) criminalizing commercial sale of “sexual devices.”
- Inserection (adult bookstore) and two individuals (Davenport, Henry) sued; district court upheld the ordinance; appeal followed and rehearing en banc was granted.
- While the case was pending en banc, the City repealed the challenged provision and passed a resolution disavowing intent to reenact it, and counsel represented the City would not reenact the law.
- Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief to strike the ordinance; Davenport and Henry also sought nominal damages.
- The en banc Court framed the threshold question as mootness: whether repeal (and assurances) eliminated a live controversy, and whether a prayer for nominal damages preserves jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeal of the ordinance moots declaratory and injunctive claims | Appellants: repeal timed to avoid adverse precedent/en banc review; case remains live because City might reenact | City: repeal + unanimous resolution + counsel disavowal show unambiguous, deliberate termination and no reasonable expectation of reenactment | Repeal and the City’s public, repeated disavowals rendered the injunctive/declaratory claims moot |
| Whether the doctrine of voluntary cessation applies | Appellants: repeal is voluntary cessation intended to manipulate jurisdiction; exception should apply | City: actions were public, deliberative, and accompanied by reasons (code inconsistency, zoning/licensing suffices), so no reasonable expectation of recurrence | Voluntary cessation exception does not apply where repeal is unambiguous and not reasonably expected to recur |
| Whether a claim for nominal damages alone preserves Article III jurisdiction after repeal | Appellants: nominal damages vindicate constitutional rights and therefore preserve a live controversy | City: nominal damages would be purely symbolic; appellants already received their practical relief via repeal, so no Article III redress remains | A prayer for nominal damages alone does not save an otherwise moot constitutional challenge in this posture |
| Relief and disposition | Appellants: request declaratory/injunctive relief and nominal damages; seek merits adjudication | City: move to dismiss for mootness; seek dismissal of appeal | Court: appeal dismissed as moot; district-court judgment vacated; case remanded with instructions to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (standing/mootness requires actual injury likely redressable)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (voluntary cessation exception; no reasonable expectation of recurrence standard)
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283 (reenactment risk relevant to mootness)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (nominal damages recognized where no provable actual injury)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (nominal damages can be sole award in §1983 litigation)
- Tanner Advertising Group, L.L.C. v. Fayette County, Ga., 451 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. en banc) (repeal can render challenge moot)
- Nat’l Advertising Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 2005) (repeal and legislative assurances can moot challenge)
- Coral Springs St. Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2004) (mootness analysis; deference to government assurances)