10-18-1999 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bukaka. Inc, v. Countv of Benton. 852 F. Supp. 807 (D. Minn. 1993). FACTS:The operator of a live nude dancing restaurant (with no liquor license) sued the County of Benton under a federal civil rights statute to prevent enforcement against it of a development code requirement that the restaurant obtain a conditional use permit to operate. The County notified the restaurant that it could not operate without a CUP because it was a "recreational facility” under the Development Code, defined as "[alny facility, park, or other property intended to be used principally for recreational purposes[.]" Bukaka alleged that the Code violated its First Amendment rights and was overbroad. The County argued that the action was not ripe because Bukaka had never applied for a CUP, nor had it exhausted its administrative remedies by appealing the County's regulation of the restaurant. ISSUE:Should a preliminary injunction issue to protect Bukaka from enforcement of the Code's conditional use permit requirement? HOLDING: Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction granted . RATIONALE: The Court analyzed four factors to determine whether a preliminary injunction was warranted: (1) irreparable harm; (2) balance of the harms; (3) probability of success on the merits; and (4) whether the public interest favored an injunction. The Court found that Bukaka had demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm because the enforcement of the Code wou d chill free expression under the threat of government sanctions. After balancing the harms involved, the Court concluded that, while granting Bukaka a preliminary injunction would impair the County's ability to exercise its police powers through enforcing its zoning ordinance, the threat to Bukaka's First Amendment rights without an injunction was "serious and imminent" and justified injunctive relief. The Court ruled that Bukaka made an adequate showing of probable success on the merits because (a) the Code provided no alternative channels for communication because all "recreational facilities” required a CUP and could be located only in business districts; (b) the vague language of the Code gave County Commissioners unconstitutionally broad discretion; and (c) the Code contained no time limits within which the County must accept or deny a CUP application. Finally, the Court found that, although conflicting public interests were involved, the public interest would be best served by enjoining enforcement of the Code, because Bukaka had made a "strong showing" of likelihood of success on the merits. A - 7