158 N.E.3d 787
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- Midwest Entertainment Ventures, Inc. (MEV, d/b/a Theatre X) operates an adult theater at 4505 Highway 31 E.; AMW Investments, Inc. (AMW) owns the property and leases it to MEV.
- In 2018 the Town’s Building Commissioner issued a notice of violation (holes between viewing rooms) to AMW; AMW did not appeal, the holes were later fixed, and the Town assessed $9,100 in civil penalties against AMW (unpaid).
- In early 2019 police observed patrons engaging in indecent acts; the Town initiated and the Town Council revoked MEV’s adult-business license after an evidentiary hearing; MEV filed a petition for judicial review in circuit court.
- The Town filed counterclaims against MEV and AMW seeking injunctive relief under the Zoning Ordinance and a new Sexually Oriented Business (SOB) Ordinance and sought the unpaid civil penalties from AMW.
- The trial court denied MEV/AMW’s motions to dismiss and granted the Town’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining MEV and AMW from operating Theatre X unless (inter alia) manager stations provided unobstructed direct line-of-sight, stations were fixed and ≤32 sq ft and staffed while patrons present, and prohibiting operation midnight–6:00 a.m.
- MEV and AMW appealed the preliminary injunction, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; AMW additionally argued it should not have been enjoined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to enter a preliminary injunction because MEV filed a "petition for review" (not a complaint) | MEV: A petition for review is not a pleading under the Trial Rules, so the Town lacked standing to file counterclaims or seek injunctive relief and the court lacked jurisdiction | Town: A petition for judicial review is analogous to a complaint; Trial Rules permit responsive pleadings and counterclaims; circuit court has general civil jurisdiction and chancery power to grant injunctions | Court: Rejected MEV; petition is equivalent to a complaint under Trial Rule 3 and circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to issue the preliminary injunction |
| Whether the interlocutory appeal may challenge the trial court’s order denying motions to dismiss as well as the preliminary injunction | MEV/AMW: Ask this court to vacate both the denial of motions to dismiss and the injunction | Town: The appeal is limited to the interlocutory order granting the preliminary injunction; the denial of the motions to dismiss is not separately appealable as of right and was not certified | Court: Appeal limited to the order granting preliminary injunction; denial of motions to dismiss is not before the court |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction as to MEV | MEV: Argued lack of jurisdiction only in brief; raised no other challenge to the injunction | Town: Proved existence of valid ordinances and ordinance violations supporting injunctive relief | Court: Affirmed as to MEV; no other challenge preserved, injunction was within court’s discretion |
| Whether AMW (the property owner) could be enjoined under the SOB and zoning ordinances | AMW: Argued Town failed to show AMW "operates" Theatre X under the SOB ordinance definitions and thus should not be enjoined or subject to hours restriction; also disputed joinder/misjoinder | Town: Lease and conduct show AMW exercised control, required premises be used as adult entertainment, retained authority over alterations, and received notices about violations and suspension; AMW can "cause to be operated" and has power to cure violations | Court: Found AMW had control and involvement; rejected AMW’s argument and affirmed injunction as to AMW (including hours restriction and civil-penalty claim) |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Scroghan, 801 N.E.2d 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (interlocutory appeals require specific authorization)
- Tom-Wat, Inc. v. Fink, 741 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. 2001) (interlocutory appeal raises every issue presented by the appealed order)
- Ind. Dep’t of Highways v. Dixon, 541 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 1989) (petition for judicial review is analogous to a complaint)
- Citizens Action Coal. of Ind. v. Koch, 51 N.E.3d 236 (Ind. 2016) (subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Plaza Grp. Properties, LLC v. Spencer Cty. Plan Comm’n, 877 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (moving party must prove existence of a valid ordinance and a violation to obtain injunction for zoning violations)
- Washel v. Bryant, 770 N.E.2d 902 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (courts have chancery jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief)