Harrington v. Strong
363 F. Supp. 3d 984
D. Neb.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (Shane Harrington and related companies) operated Club Omaha, a private-membership adult-entertainment venue permitting members to bring their own alcohol; challenged state and city laws that regulate "bottle clubs" and nuisance standards after Nebraska enacted LB 1120 and Omaha passed two ordinances extending liquor/nuisance rules to bottle clubs.
- Plaintiffs previously sued in Nebraska state court seeking to enjoin LB 1120; the state court dismissed various claims (some on Eleventh Amendment grounds, others on the merits); that judgment is on appeal.
- Plaintiffs staged a July 21, 2018 public protest outside Club Omaha; Omaha police allegedly threatened citations, entered/blocked the club entrance, and inspected IDs; city prosecutor later said protest was lawful.
- Plaintiffs filed this federal suit asserting ~20 causes of action (federal constitutional and state-law claims) against state officials, city officials, the City of Omaha, and individual officers; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The district court dismissed most claims: many state-law and official-capacity claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; several claims were barred by Rooker–Feldman or claim/issue preclusion based on the prior state-court judgment; multiple federal claims failed for failure to state a plausible § 1983, § 1985, First/Fourth Amendment, Contracts Clause, vagueness/overbreadth, Establishment Clause, bill-of-attainder, or municipal-liability theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for state-official and state-law claims | Harrington sought declaratory/injunctive relief and damages against state officials and the State for NLCA and related claims | State Defendants: sovereign immunity bars suits for money damages and state-law claims; Ex parte Young limited to prospective relief for federal-law violations | Most state-law claims and money damages claims dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; limited prospective federal claims survived only where not precluded or barred by Eleventh Amendment |
| Preclusion / Rooker–Feldman (prior state-court judgment) | Federal suit reasserts constitutional challenges and seeks to enjoin enforcement of state-court judgment | State Defendants: prior state-court judgment is final as to many claims; Rooker–Feldman and claim/issue preclusion bar relitigation in federal court | Rooker–Feldman barred claim seeking to enjoin state judgment; multiple constitutional challenges were barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion and dismissed (some with prejudice) |
| § 1983, § 1985, and municipal liability for ordinances and official actions | Plaintiffs claimed retaliation, conspiracy, unlawful searches, and municipal liability for ordinances targeting Club Omaha | City Defendants: pleadings are conclusory; legislative immunity for council/ mayor; intracorporate-conspiracy doctrine; failure to plead municipal policy/custom or specific constitutional violations | § 1983 retaliation, search, and conspiracy claims dismissed for failure to state plausible claims; municipal liability and conspiracy theories rejected; legislative immunity protected city legislators for enactment of ordinances |
| Facial First Amendment challenges (overbreadth, vagueness) and other federal constitutional claims (Contracts Clause, Bill of Attainder, Establishment) | Ordinances and NLCA provisions unlawfully overbroad/vague, impair contracts, single out Club Omaha, reflect religious motives | Defendants: facial challenges disfavored and Plaintiffs lack standing/specification; ordinances regulate businesses and follow long-standing regulatory schemes; no specificity showing a bill of attainder or Establishment violation | Overbreadth claim dismissed for lack of Article III standing; vagueness claim dismissed (ordinance is a civil business regulation); Contracts Clause, bill-of-attainder, and Establishment claims dismissed for failure to plausibly plead substantial impairment, specificity, or improper governmental purpose |
Key Cases Cited
- Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1990) (Eleventh Amendment/sovereign-immunity principles discussed)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (exception allowing prospective relief against state officials for federal-law violations)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (federal courts cannot order state officials to conform their conduct to state law)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine scope described)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability framework under § 1983)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard: plausibility required)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive dismissal)
- Burger v. New York, 482 U.S. 691 (U.S. 1987) (Fourth Amendment expectations of privacy in commercial premises)
- Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1998) (legislative immunity protects local legislators for legislative acts)