Levi v. City of Ontario

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

I.Procedural History

Plaintiffs filed this action on October 28, 1996, seeking a declaration that’Ontario’s adult business zoning ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on adult speech and an injunction barring enforcement of the ordinance. Although Ontario also requires adult businesses to obtain a conditional use permit (“CUP”), Plaintiffs do not challenge the constitutionality of the CUP process.

In an order dated May 22, 1997, this Court held that Plaintiffs could not challenge the constitutionality of the Ontario ordinance as applied to their business because this claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs then proceeded with a facial challenge to the ordinance’s constitutionality. As a result of the previous ruling, the Court excluded. as irrelevant all evidence of how this ordinance affects these particular, Plaintiffs. In a May 22, 1997, Order, this Court\also rejected Plaintiffs motion for leave)to file a first amended complaint to add a cause of action based on California law. On-.August 25, 1997, this Court denied Defendant’s motion for summary…