Opinion ID: 377140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure Requirements for Others Who Have an Interest in an Adult Bookstore

Text: 44 The ordinance requires that information of the same kind required of an applicant for an adult bookstore license must also be provided by any partner or limited partner of the partnership applicant, any officer or director of the corporate applicant, any stockholder holding more than ten (10) percent of the stock of a corporate applicant, and any other person who is interested directly in the ownership or operation of the business. 32 Plaintiffs argue that these requirements are invalid as prior restraints and invasions of the First Amendment right of associational privacy. 45 We must first address plaintiffs' standing. There are no plaintiffs who allege facts that would place them in the categories of partners, limited partners, or any other person who has an interest in an adult bookstore. We are, therefore, without jurisdiction to entertain challenges to these provisions. Portions of the district court's judgment upholding or invalidating these provisions are vacated, and the allegations as to these provisions are dismissed for want of a justiciable case or controversy. 46 There are, however, a corporate plaintiff and a corporate officer plaintiff who have standing to challenge the disclosure requirements that apply to officers, directors, and stockholders of a corporate applicant. We have not been advised whether the plaintiff owner that has sought and obtained a license is the corporate plaintiff. If it is, its officers, directors, and stockholders holding over ten percent of its stock have already disclosed the information required under the ordinance. Nevertheless, the license will have to be renewed, and the owners, directors, and officers may change, so we believe the corporate plaintiff at least has a sufficient personal stake in the outcome of a challenge to the validity of these disclosure requirements to support standing. 47 The limited information that will be pertinent to enforcement of the scatter zoning provisions will be provided to the city by the application of the corporation itself. There would seem to be no purpose other than harassment in requiring the individual officers, directors, and stockholders to file separate statements or applications under oath. Requiring them to do so is an unjustified prior restraint and an invasion of privacy. 33 Accordingly, the disclosure requirements as to officers, directors, and stockholders of corporate applicants are invalid.