Maages Auditorium v. Prince George's County, 4 F. Supp. 3d 752

Plaintiffs challenge two Prince George’s County zoning ordinances, CB-46-2010 and CB-56-2011, restricting adult entertainment.
CB-46 defines adult entertainment and bans it broadly except in Zone 1-2; it imposed location and timing restraints and a May 1, 2013 conformance deadline.
CB-56 adds a revised definition and allows existing nonconforming businesses in certain zones to continue with a Special Exception, imposing a June 1, 2012 deadline for applications.
Plaintiffs applied for Special Exceptions; one, D2, was denied on May 20, 2013, with subsequent appeals.
Plaintiffs assert eight counts including Equal Protection, First Amendment challenges, procedural safeguards, vagueness, and takings/amortization issues.
The court denied a preliminary injunction and granted in part and denied in part the County’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing of John and Jane Doe	Doe plaintiffs lack standing to raise federal issues.	Doe plaintiffs have injury from denied access to protected performances.	John and Jane Doe lack standing; dismiss.
Substantial governmental interest and alternative avenues	County cannot show substantial interest or adequate alternative channels for speech.	County may rely on common-sense evidence for secondary effects; alternatives exist.	Partial summary judgment for County on substantial interest; alternative avenues disputed; issues remain.
Adequacy of alternative avenues of communication	There are too few available sites and restrictive covenants render alternatives nonviable.	Sites exist and are adequately available; calculation disputes remain.	Material dispute of fact; summary judgment denied on this issue.
Prior restraint via Special Exception	Special Exception criteria grant unbridled discretion, constituting a prior restraint.	Criteria mirror constitutionally upheld standards; not a forbidden prior restraint.	Special Exception criteria are constitutionally cabined; no unconstitutional prior restraint; counts II, III, V, VI dismissed.
Equal Protection (rational basis)	New zoning laws arbitrarily burden adult businesses; possible discriminatory enforcement.	Rational basis with legitimate governmental purpose; no demonstrated purposeful discrimination.	Summary judgment for Defendant on Count I.

Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation; substantial government interest)
Alameda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 425 (2002) (facially neutral regulating secondary effects of adult entertainment)
Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans, 612 F.3d 736 (4th Cir. 2010) (common-sense evidence can support substantial government interest)
Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2011) (common sense and experience may support regulation of secondary effects)
Steakhouse, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 166 F.3d 634 (4th Cir. 1999) (cabined discretion under licensing-like criteria; guiding standards)
Wag More Dogs, LLC v. Cozart, 680 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2012) (upholds discretionary but guided permit-like schemes; standards limit discretion)
Covenant Media of S.C. v. City of North Charleston, 493 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2007) (prior restraint standards depend on content-neutrality and decision standards)
Thomas v. City of Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316 (2002) (judicial review of licensing constraints; pattern of discretion vs rigidity)
Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (final decision requirement and state procedures for takings claims)