Opinion ID: 3014152
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lui’s claims for equitable relief

Text: on Count Two; and declaratory and are dismissed without prejudice; injunctive relief and fees and costs from the State only on Counts Three and Four. (2) Lui’s claims for monetary damages against the State of Delaware, M. Lui moved for partial summary Jane Brady, and the Commission on Adult judgment on Count One (violation of the Entertainment Establishments of the State First Amendment), and alternatively for a of Delaware are dismissed with prejudice; preliminary injunctio n preventing enforcement of the State Act, 24 Del. C. (3)Partial summary judgment is § 1610, and the County Code, § 40- entered for New Castle County against Lui 133(a)(13). He argued that the restrictions on the issue of the County’s liability for imposed by the State and County damages under Count One of Lui’s effectively deny adequate alternative Amended Complaint; and avenues of communication for the (4)Further activity is stayed until presentation of adult entertainment. The the final resolution of Lui’s criminal County cross-moved for summary prosecution by the State of Delaware, now judgment, and both the State and the pending in Delaware Superior Court. County filed motions to dismiss Lui’s Amended Complaint. The District Court’s order did not identify each Count in its disposition. We Both the State and County argued have been able to cure that deficiency by that the District Judge was required to reference to the proceedings and the abstain from exercising jurisdiction under District Court opinion, to the following the doctrine announced in Younger v. effect: The equitable claims made in Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because of the Count One were dismissed without ongoing criminal prosecution of Lui in prejudice under Younger. The District state court. The County also argued that it Court determined that the State and could not be held liable for enforcing a County were immune to money damages zoning restriction imposed upon the under the Eleventh Amendment and state County by State law. law. Accordingly, the claim for money damages against the State and County were dismissed with prejudice. As to 7 Lui conceded that the State was Count Two, the equitable claims immune to Lui’s claims for damages pertaining to Equal Protection were under the Eleventh Amendment. Lui dismissed without prejudice, and the also withdrew all claims against claims for monetary damages and fees and defendant M. Jane Brady, Attorney costs were stayed. At oral argument, General of Delaware. 5 counsel for Lui stipulated that all of Count dismiss Lui’s appeal for lack of appellate Two should be regarded as having been jurisdiction. dismissed with prejudice. Counts Three We address jurisdiction of this and Four sought only equitable relief, and Court at the outset. Although the were dismissed by the District Court timeliness of Lui’s appeal was questioned without prejudice. In his appellate brief, by the County, our independent analysis Lui conceded that Counts Three and Four shows that the County’s claim of were properly the subject of Younger untimeliness is without merit for two abstention. reasons. First, the order which the County Thus, what remains for us to decide identified as being “final” was, in fact, is whether the District Judge erred in interlocutory, as it was “without applying Younger abstention to Count prejudice.” See Borelli v. City of Reading, One, and whether he erred by retaining 532 F.2d 950, 951-52 (3d Cir. 1976) (per jurisdiction over Lui’s claim for fees and curiam). Second, the District Court costs brought in the same Count.8 retained jurisdiction over the fees and costs claimed by Lui under Count One, Lui filed a timely appeal from the thereby ostensibly leaving its order non- District Court’s orders of January 31, 2003 final. and February 27, 2003. This latter issue, which we discuss