Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Page 8 -- March 25, 2004 the ordinance, it did not need to be denied any permit before f'Lling its lawsuit against the ordinance itself. Were 'Lamar to succeed on its claims, it would likely be able to erect at least some of the signs it intended to build, including those with noncommer- cial messages, even if the size restrictions were ultimately found valid. Consequently, Lamar had injuries that could be remedied by winning its lawsuit, and it was perfectly within its rights to sue. see also: Grea~er iV. Y Metropolitan Food Council Inc. v. Giuliani, 195 F3d lO0 .(1999). see also: Harp Advertising Illinois fnc. v. Village of Chicago Ridge, 9 F. 3d 1290 (1993). Injunction -- Corporation asks court to stop enforcement of ordinance Fails to show that its lawsuit will likely succeed Ci~azion: 308 Highway 35 [nc. v. The Borough of Eatontown, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-2007 (2004) The 3rd Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands. NEW JERSEY (02/06/04) -- A corporation, 308 Highway 35 Inc., provided adult entertainment. The corporation sued the borough of Eatontown. It claimed the borough's land use ordinance, to the extent it prohibited live entertainment in ali zoning districts generally, and live entertainment in the form of nude and semi-nude dancers specifically, violated the corporation's Fkst Amendment rights. The corporation asked the court to grant a court order stopping the en- forcement of the land use ordinance. The court refused to do so. The corporation appealed, arguing it was entitled to protection from the borough's zoning laws. DECISION': Affirmed. The corporation was not entitled to an injunction because it failed to dem- onstrate a likelihood of success in irs lawsuit. To be eligible for an injunction, the corporation had to show it would likely succeed in its lawsuit, it would suffer irreparable harm, the borough would rtot suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was ~anted, and that the public inter- est supported the corporation's claim. Even after the preliminary litigation, it still remained unclear whether the borough prohibited live enfe~ainment in Earontown or whether there were alter- native avenues available for the operation of a sexually oriented business. Con- sequently, the corporation failed ro show den/al of the injunction would result in'Lrreparable injury to it or that the injunction would be m the pubhc interest. see also: A!le.The:~y E;~e~;gy [;w. v. DQ£ [;~c., 171 F. 3d 153 (t999). tee c;L,:c:: ~hi:,-:' (:.S. ?.,~c. ,.'. :8~.u'r L~',:bs /.;~c.. z729 ?3,:f 34,5 .~:~) 2004 Cutnian PubiJsatnq Gro~J¢, .'-'.¢]v ;eproouc'Jon ,s 9rohib~ied. For more information oie~se :,ail :S~ 7) 542-0048. 136