Topanga Press, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law

409 F. Supp. 2d 1188·2005 WL 3674466·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39800

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaAugust 30, 2005CV 88-7837 WMB, CV 89-2069-RG, CV 89-3791 RG, CV 91-0689-RG, CV 91-1035 RG, CV 91-1122 RG, CV 91-1653 RGCalifornia3,907 words

Opinion

Byrne, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT DECREE

I. Facts

In 1989, Stuart D. Parr (Parr) and Brand X Video (Brand X) filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of Los Angeles’s adult arcade permitting process. Parr and Brand X argued that the permit process violated the First Amendment by creating the likelihood that the government would arbitrarily deny adult arcade permits, thereby suppressing speech. The Los Angeles Municipal Code (L.A.M.C.), as it then existed, did not require the Board of Police Commissioners (the Board) to act on an adult arcade application within any specified period of time. In addition, the Board was authorized to deny permit applications if it found “that [the] said operation [would] not comport with the peace, health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the public.” Finally, pursuant to L.A.M.C. § 12.26(A)(2), the Board could not issue an adult arcade permit without the prior approval of the Department of Building and Safety (DBS). The DBS, in turn, was not subject to any time limits for approving or denying such permits.

While the plaintiffs’ cases were pending before the district court, the Supreme Court decided…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.