Jake's, Ltd., Inc. v. City of Coates

Submitted: October 22, 2003 After the City of Coates, Minnesota, enacted zoning ordinances barring Jake's, Ltd., from continuing to offer live nude dancing at its existing location, Jake's and its owner, Richard J. Jacobson (collectively, ""Jake's""), commenced this action, alleging that the ordinances violated their First Amendment rights. The City removed the action and counterclaimed for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court dismissed Jake's complaint with prejudice. Jake's Ltd. v. City of Coates, 176 F. Supp. 2d 899, 901 (D. Minn. 2001). Three weeks later, at the City's request, the court amended its final order to enjoin Jake's ""from operating a sexually-oriented business at their current location"" in violation of the ""relevant ordinances of the City of Coates."" Jake's appealed the dismissal of its First Amendment claims. We affirmed in all relevant respects. Jake's Ltd. v. City of Coates, 284 F.3d 884 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 948 (2002). Jake's did not appeal the scope of the district court's injunction, even though federal courts have long disfavored ""[b]lanket injunctions against general violation of a statute."" Beatty v. United States, 191 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir. 1951); see Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 396 (1905). The district court stayed its injunction pending Jake's prior appeal. When the stay expired on May 22, 2002, Jake's continued to offer live nude dancing. But Jake's eliminated the prior five dollar cover charge, instead charging a five dollar fee to park outside the establishment, regardless of whether a customer entered. In addition, Jake's began selling soft drinks outside instead of inside the building. The City filed a contempt motion. After a hearing, the district court held Jake's in contempt and ordered Jake's ""to close the sexually-oriented business at 15981 Clayton Avenue in Coates"" and to pay a civil contempt sanction of one thousand dollars per day for any future continued operation. In addition, finding that Jake's did not oppose the contempt motion ""in good faith,"" the court ordered Jake's to pay the City costs and attorney's fees of $6,490.57. Jake's appeals these rulings in Case No. 02-2931.