Opinion ID: 1040084
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count I - Freedom of Expression

Text: Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly dismissed count one of their amended complaint, which alleged that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ right to free 1 Defendants’ argument that the Lottery Commissioner is not a proper party to this lawsuit because he no longer has authority over millionaire-party licensing and regulation is without merit. Although the Michigan Governor transferred these responsibilities to the Executive Director of the Michigan Gaming Control Board, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 432.91, the Executive Director is substituted automatically for the Lottery Commissioner by operation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) which provides: “An action does not abate when a public officer who is a party in an official capacity dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office while the action is pending. The officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party.” See also, Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 750 F.2d 81, 87 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (applying Rule 25(d) to a transfer of authority between two departments); Porter v. Am. Distilling Co., 71 F. Supp. 483, 489 (S.D.N.Y. 1947) (same). No. 12-2384 Top Flight Entm’t, et al. v. Schuette, et al. Page 8 expression by retaliating against them for offering adult entertainment, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A properly pled prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation must allege: (1) the plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiff’s protected conduct. Wurzelbacher v. Jones-Kelley, 675 F.3d 580, 583 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Nude dancing, such as the entertainment provided by Plaintiffs, is considered protected expressive conduct. City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 289 (2000). Defendants argue that it is implausible for Plaintiffs to suggest that qualified organizations were denied millionaire-party licenses because of Plaintiffs’ exercise of their right to offer adult entertainment given that licenses were granted to organizations after Plaintiffs informed Defendants that Flight Club offered topless dancing. However, Defendants ignore Plaintiffs’ allegation that: “After Flying Aces was approved as a lessor and . . . was placed on the Bureau’s list of approved locations and charitable gaming events were conducted at that location, the Bureau received many complaints that charitable gaming events should not be conducted at ‘a topless bar[,]’” leading to Defendants’ policy denying all millionaire-party licenses to organizations seeking to hold a millionaire party at Flying Aces. Although it is true that Plaintiffs were able to hold numerous millionaire parties at Flying Aces before Defendants’ alleged actions, Plaintiffs have alleged a plausible reason—complaints about millionaire parties being held at their topless bar—that suggests Defendants may have denied the licenses on the basis of protected conduct. We therefore reverse the district court’s determination that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim in count I of their amended complaint.