Stadium Book & Video v. Miami-Dade County, Florida , 253 F. App'x 840 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
NOV 07, 2007
No. 06-14790
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-20537-CV-AJ
STADIUM BOOK & VIDEO, INC.,
a Florida Corporation,
AAPG, INC.,
a Florida Corporation,
d.b.a. MEGAPLEXXX,
VIDEO WAREHOUSE, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________
No. 06-14792
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 04-20553-CV-AJ
AAPG, INC.,
a Florida corporation,
d.b.a. MEGAPLEXXX,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
a political subdivision of the
State of Florida,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(November 7, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Three adult bookstores brought suit against Miami-Dade County (the
“County”) attacking the constitutionality of a County ordinance, which requires
that all video booths inside adult book and video stores have a permanently open
entranceway or doorway.
In a detailed 61-page order, the district court granted the County’s motion
for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary
judgment.
2
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Nat’l
Adver. Co. v. City of Miami, 402 F.3d 1335, 1138 (11th Cir. 2005), cert. denied,
546 U.S. 1170, 126 S. Ct. 1318 (2006).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the
district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the County based on its
well-reasoned and thorough 61-page order. We agree with the district court that
Ordinance 96-13 is a proper time, place, and manner regulation, and not a total
ban on speech, because it does not prohibit the viewing of sexually explicit
materials, but instead, regulates the manner in which such materials must be
viewed. We also agree with the district court that in enacting Ordinance 96-13 the
County had before it sufficient evidence reasonably relevant to combat the spread
of AIDS and STDs, which was the stated purpose of Ordinance 96-13.
In conclusion, because we find no merit to any of the arguments plaintiffs
make in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s final judgment entered in favor
of the County.
AFFIRMED.
3