FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 30 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1076 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 5- 01 03 7- CV-T-2 3- MAP TA URU S PR OP ER TYVENT URE S, LL C, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us CITY OF PLANT CITY, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (J un e 30, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T auru s Pr ope rty V en tur es , L L C, (“ T au ru s” ) sue d the Ci ty of Pl an t C ity ( “ the Ci ty ”) , a lle gin g th at

the Ci ty ’ s a dul t- use z oni ng o rd inanc e w as unc onst it ut ional on2

its f ac e an d th at

the or din an ce ha d be ena ppl ie d un co nst itu tio na lly to de ny T auru s a pe rm it to op erate ac lub tha t w oul d of fe r “ er oti c/ str ipt ea se danc ing ” an d “ se xua lly explicit m aterials f

or sale. ” A fter T aurus filed this lawsuit a n d m o v ed fo r a pr el im inary

inj unc tio n, the Ci ty

a m en de d th e or din ance. The Ci ty the n m ove d f

or dis m iss al of

T au ru s’ s law sui t or , in the al te rn at ive , sum m ar y j udgm en t on the gr ound s t h at Tau ru s ’s ch al l en g es we re m o o t . A mag i s t ra t e ju d g e h el da h ea ri n g o n Tau ru s ’s
m ot io n for

apr el im inary

inj unc tio n and the Ci ty ’ s m oti on f or dis m iss al or , in the al te rn at ive , sum

m ar y j udgm en t. The m agistra te j udge ’ s f ind ing s and h is
re co m m en da tio ns ( tha t T auru s’ s m oti on fo r pr el im inary inj unc tio n be de nie d, tha t the City ’ s m otion for dism issal be granted in part on t h e b as i s of m ootn ess, and that T auru s’ s c la im s for da m ag es be stay ed unt il re sol uti on o f an oth er c as e in this c ourt)
w er e ad opt ed

in the ir e nti re ty by the dis tr ic t c ourt. T au ru s a ppe al s. This court has j urisdictio n to consi der the app eal of the denial of a prelim inary injunction pu rsuant to 28 U. S. C. § 129 2(1). T auru s’ s arg um en t tha t the a m en de d or dinan ce is vo id ab i nit io is n ot supp orted by

rec ord evidence dem onstrating that the process by which the ordinance
wa s enacted w as legally

deficient. Ther efore, Ta

urus’ s claim s for equitable relief that
se ek ade cl ar at iontha t the old or din an ce is un co ns tit

uti ona l and an in

j unc tio n prev entin g th e Ci ty

f ro m e nf or ci ng the old

or din an ce a ga ins t T au ru s or , in theThis holding re solves the jurisdictional question that was ca rried w ith this case . 1 3 alternative, requiring the City to issu e T aurus a perm it und er the old ordinance are
m oot . See Co ral

Spr ing s Stre et Sy ste m s, I nc . v . Ci ty of Sunr ise , 371 F
. 3d 1 320, 132 8 1 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) ( “ ‘ [w ] he n a subs eque nt la w br ing s the ex ist ing co ntr ove rs y to an e nd the c as e bec om es m oot an d should be tr ea te d acc or din gly
. ’ ”) ( quot ing Co ali tio n fo r the A bol iti on of

M ari jua na P rohi bit ion v. Ci tyof A tla nta , 219 F
. 3d 1 301, 131 0 ( 11th Ci r. 2 0 0 0 )) . We f

i n dn o er ro r i n t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ad o p t i o n o f t h e mag i s t ra t e ju d g e’s hol din g th at

no e xc ep tio ns t o th e m oo tn es s do ctri ne appl y be ca use T au ru s ha d no
ve ste d r igh t t o ape rm it unde r the old or din an ce , a s ar es ult

of e ither equ ita

ble
es to pp el or b adfai th act io n o n b eh al f of th e Ci ty. ( See R. 2- 59 at 8- 9; R. 2- 62. ) T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

a s m oot al l c la im s f

or e qui ta ble r el ie f unde r the old or din an ce , a nd tha t di sm iss al is af fi rm ed
. Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt s t ayed Ta u ru s ’s s u i t fo r da m ag es u n t i l re l ea s e o f t h i s co u rt ’s
e n b a n c o p i n i o n in Ta nne r A dv er tis ing G roup , LLC

, v . F ay et te Co unt

y, G eo rgi a , – F.3 d – , No. 0 4- 13 21 0 ( 1 1 t h C ir. J un e 9 , 20 06 ) (en ba nc ). Tanner has now been decided by

the en banc court. The case is re m an ded to the dis trict court for f urther pr oc ee din g c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. AFFIR MED AND REMANDED.