2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
12-13-2004 

# T e r minel lo v . C it y of P a s s aic P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4832

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" T e r mine l lo v

. C it y of P as s aic " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 84. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/84NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4832

GLORIA TERMI NELLO; MONTAUCK AM USEMENT SPACE, INC.
v. CITY O F PASSA IC; SAMU EL RIVE RA, indivi dually and as Mayor of t

he Cityof Pas sa ic ; CI TY COUNCIL OF T HE CITY OF PASSAI C; GARY S. SCHAER, indivi dually

and as Presi dent and member of the CityCouncil of the Cityof Passai c; GE RA RD O F ER NA ND EZ , individ ually and as m emb er of th e City C oun cil of th e City of P assaic ; HE RM AN S. B AR KL EY , JR., ind ividua lly and as m emb er of th e City Co uncil o f the C ity of Pas saic; JO SE GA RC IA, in dividu ally and a s me mb er of th e City Council of the Cityof Passai c; MARC ELLU S JACK SON, individual ly and as member of the City Councilof the City of Pas saic; CHA IM M . MUN K, indivi dually and as member of the City Councilof the City of Pas saic; DAN IEL J. SCHWA RTZ, indivi dually and as member of the City Councilof the City of Pas saic; JONA THA N SOT O, indivi dually and as m em ber of th e C ity Co unc il of t he C ity of P assa ic; JO HN H. M CK IN NE Y, J R.,

indivi dually

and as Director of Poli ce of the Cit y of Pas saic, Ap pellan ts
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRI CT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (Dist. Court No. 03-4364) Distri ct Court J udge: Hon. John W. Biss ell, Chief Judge

Argued November 2, 2004 Be for e: A LIT O, F UE NT ES , and ST AP LE TO N, Circuit Judges.2 (Opinion Fi led: December 13, 2004)

ROB ERT E. LEV Y (argued) Scarinc i & Hol le nbec k, LL C 1100 ValleyBrook Avenue Lyndhurs t, New Jerse y 07071 Howard B. M ankoff Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Go ggin 425 Eagle Rock Avenue Suite 302 Roseland, NJ 07068 Co unse l for Ap pellan ts HERA LD P. FAH RINGE R (argued) ERI CA T. DUBNO Li ps itz , G re en , F ah rin ge r, R ol l, S ali sb ur y & Cambr ia , LLP 780 Third Avenue, 32nd Fl oor New Y ork, New York 10017 Counsel for

Appellees

OPINI ON OF THE COURT
PER CU RIA M : As we write onlyfor the parti es invol ved, we will not res tate the fact s below. The Cityof Passai c appeals a preli minaryinjunct ion agai nst the enforcement of Resoluti on 9439-03. The effe ct of the preli minaryinjunct ion is to all ow the plai ntiff s to oper ate The Montauck Theater whil e theychall enge the deni al of their appl ication for an3

entert ainment l icense. The entert ainment l icense was deni ed because the theat er refus ed to employan off-duty

policeofficer

as part of the sec urity t eam. For the reasons stat ed below , we vac ate the order.

I. Orders grant

ing or deny ing a prel iminary injunct ion are reviewed for abuse of disc retio n. Catrol, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co. , 987 F.2d 939 (3d Cir. 1993). Because an abuse of discr etion e xist s where the Dis tri ct Court' s decis ion res ts on an i ncorrect conclusi on of law , the C our t app lies p lena ry revi ew to a D istrict Co urt's le gal c onc lusio ns. AmeriSteel Corp. v. Int'l Bhd . of Team sters , 267 F.3d 264, 267 (3d Cir. 2001). I n this case, t he approp riate constitutional standard is a q uestion of law , and is therefore su bject to plenary
re vi ew. II. Gloria Terminell o and Montauck Amusement Space, Inc. (The Montauck) fil ed this cas e und er 42 U.S .C. § 1 983 . The statute o f limitatio ns fo r any Se ction 1 983 claim is determi ned by r eferri ng to the s tate stat ute governi ng acti ons for per sonal i njuri es. The plaint iffs fi led the ir act

ion on September

30, 2004, approximate ly six months after the CityCouncil’s denial of an entertainment lice nse. The action was ther efore timelyunder the a ppl icab le tw o-yea r Jers ey statu te of limita tion s. N .J. S TAT . A NN . § 2A:14 -2 (2003 );
see C ito v. B rid ge w ate r T ow ns hi p P ol ice D ep 't , 892 F.2 d 23 , 25 ( 3d C ir. 19 89)
.4 III. The Distri ct Court e rred i n reviewing t he CityCouncil’s acti on under the “arbit rary , capri cious, and unreasonabl e” standard appli cable t o all e xercis es of poli ce pow er under N ew Jerse y Court Ru le 4:69 (“A ctions in Lieu o f Preroga tive Writs”). Although thi s case bear s factua l si milari ty to the l ine of New Jerseycases i n which business owners chall enged city or dinances requiri ng them to hi re off-dut y pol ice officer s, this cas e is l egall y di sti nct becaus e it was fi led under Sec tion 1983 and specifi call y as sert s viol ations of the feder al Consti tuti on, inc luding rights guarante ed by the Fir st Amendment. Each of t he asserted viol ations must be anal yzed i n light of the pro per con stitutio nal te st. See Go ttlieb v. L aurel H ighlan ds Sc h. D ist. , 272 F.3d 168, 171 (3d Cir. 2001). Because the fai lure t o do so consti tutes an abuse of di scretion, t he resul ting or der must be vac ated. Although the District Court will address t he matter in due course, the parties’ continued disagreement regarding the constit utional standard appli cable to the First Am endm ent cla im pro mp ts a fulle r discu ssion o f that q uestion at this tim e. Th e Pas saic CityCouncil pass ed Resoluti on 9439-03 to pr event criminal acti vity associ ated with the operation of The M ontauck Theater, and therefore the resolution is properlyviewed as a reg ulati on d irect ed a gain st the sec ond ary ef fec ts of spe ech
. See Cityof Renton v. Play time Theat ers, Inc. , 475 U .S. 41, 4 7 (19 86). R egula tions targ eting se cond ary effe cts
rema in w ithin the amb it of the First A men dm ent, bu t beca use th e city’s intere st in5

prese rving the qu ality of urb an life we aken s the inf erenc e of im perm issible disc rimi natio n, th ese reg ulati ons are s ubj ecte d on ly to inte rme diate scru tiny. See Cityof Los Angeles v. Alameda Books , 525 U.S . 425 , 447 (20 02) (K enn edy, J., c onc urrin g). Regulati ons address ing secondary effe cts must sati sfy the same const

itutional test as other “tim e, pla ce, a nd m ann er” r estric tion s on exp ress ive s pee ch. See Ward v. Ro ck Against Racism , 491 U .S. 781 , 791 ( 198 9); Mitchellv. Commission on Adult Entert ainment , 10 F.3d 123 (3d Cir . 1993). A regulati on will be uphe ld if ( 1) it is j usti fied without refe rence to the c ontent of

the regul ated spee ch; (2) it i s narrowly tail ored to s erve a subs tanti al or signi ficant

government i nteres t; and ( 3) it leaves ope n ample alternati ve channels for
com mu nica tion
. Ben Rich Trading, Inc., et al . v. Ci ty of Vineland , 126 F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 1997). Although the ultimate burden of proof rests with t he City, the plainti ffs must sho w a likel iho od o f su cce ss o n th e m erits in ord er to sec ure a pr elim inar y injun ction
. See Phillips v. Boro ugh of Keyport , 107 F.3d 164, 172 -73 (3d C ir. 1997) (en ba nc). The requir ement that

the regul ation be narrowlytail ored to s erve a subs tanti al government i nteres t does not demand that t

he Cityadopt the least

restrictive means cap able of a chie vin g th eir g oals
. See Wa rd , 491 U.S. a t 799. Nevert heless , a regul ation is over broad if “ a substa ntialporti on of the burde n on speech does not serve t o advance [the government’s] goals. ” Id .; see also Phill ips , 107 F.3d at 174. In t

his cas e, the District Court could not

have properl y made this det ermination because there i s no evidence in the record es tabli shing the cost of hi ring off- duty police officer s as compared t o bondedsecurity guards or the total cos t of the me asures requ ired by Resolution 9 439-03 that were

volu ntarily ado pted b y The M ontau ck. A t oral arg um ent, co unse l for the City refu sed to concede that

off-duty police officer s charge s ubstantiall y more for their servi ces than bonded securi ty guards. We must assume that counsel had a

good faith basis f

or taki ng this position, a nd accordi ngly on remand the Dist rict Court shoul d recei ve evidence a nd make findings on the fact ual is sues note d above. The Dist rict Court previ ouslyfound that the requirement that pla inti ffs hir e off-duty police officer s was not jus tifi ed even in l ight of plai ntiff

s’ past conduct. On remand, the Dis tri ct Court s hould addres s that questi on armed with fact s on the r ecord regarding t he relative c osts of hiring off- duty officer s, and in the c ontext of

narrow tai lori ng. Bec ause The M ontau ck’s p roba bility of suc cess u nder the ap prop riate
cons titutional te st cann ot be d eterm ined o n the re cord befo re this C ourt, w e mu st vaca te the prel iminary

injunct ion. Our deci sion i s without prejudi ce to anyfuture application for tempora ry or preliminary relief grounded on the go verning co nstitutional standard disc uss ed a bov e.