Clark v. City of Lakewood

Good Law
259 F.3d 996·2001 WL 877062
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 6, 2001No. 99-35453California8,465 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fisher, J.

OVERVIEW

Bryan Clark, the owner of three closed adult businesses in the City of Lakewood, brought this lawsuit challenging Lakewood’s new adult cabaret ordinance (“Ordinance”). Clark claims the Ordinance violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and was passed in violation of the Washington Open Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”). Both Clark and the City of Lakewood moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Lakewood concluding that Clark lacked standing and that the Ordinance was constitutional. We reverse. We hold that Clark has standing to raise most of his claims. We further hold that Lakewood developed its factual findings for the Ordinance in violation of the OPMA, thereby making them “null and void,” so that the Ordinance itself may lack evidentiary support and may therefore be unconstitutional. We also conclude that the Ordinance’s 21-day waiting period for managers on its face violates the Washington Constitution.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The Adult Task Force and Passage of the Ordinance

In May 1996, the Lakewood City Council authorized the…

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.