Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 1 of 18 PageID 19
*
*
*
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
*
*
VERSUS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
citizen, and as the corporate representative of Gentex Media in the official capacity as a
Page 1
Page 2 of 18 PageID 20
Texas and admitted to the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, and
files this, its Original Complaint Seeking Declaratory Relief, Preliminary Injunctive
Relief, Permanent Injunctive Relief, Damages and Attorney Fees, in the above-entitled
and -numbered cause of action. The Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court hereby
GRANT the relief requested herein. For just cause, the Plaintiff would show this Court
as follows:
SECTION NUMBER I: INTRODUCTION AND
DESCRIPTION OF CAUSE OF ACTION
(1)
This is a civil case. Plaintiff prays this court issue a Declaratory Judgment against
Defendants holding that the resolution enacted by the Dallas City Council violates the
free speech and free expression rights of the United States Constitution and the
concomitant provisions of the Texas Constitution. Plaintiff prays this Court grant a
preliminary injunction and further grant a permanent injunction against Defendants, such
injunction ordering and directing City of Dallas officials to issue a contract for the use of
the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention center to Plaintiff and/or Three Expo Events, LLC,
or others similarly situated, for use of that facility to conduct the Exxxotica expo. The
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants, acting in their official capacities as elected city
officials of the City of Dallas, from acting under color of state and municipal law to
deprive Plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities granted under the United States
(2)
Plaintiff prays the Court prohibit the Defendants from enforcing various City
Defendants
Page 2
Page 3 of 18 PageID 21
specifically the
KAY
BAILEY
HUTCHINSON
CONVENTION
CENTER
Plaintiff avers that Exxxotica does not engage in obscenity or any other form of
unconstitutional speech or expression. As such, the exposition does not run afoul of any
Moreover, Plaintiff avers that Exxxotica is a lawful event, well within its constitutional
rights to lease exhibit space, and that the city would most likely be sued and lose,
potentially costing the city and taxpayers a large sum.
See, Statement of the Dallas City Attorney, Warren M.S. Ernst, Esq.
http://3xevents.com/xl6/press/2016 2.12 federal iniunction.html.
(4)
Despite warnings by and against the advice of the Dallas City Attorney, the City
Council passed a resolution banning the use of the convention center by Three Expo
Events, LLC for its 2016 Exxxotica exposition. Many persons, including at least seven
(7) members of the City Council acknowledged publicly that Exxxotica was within its
legal and constitutional rights to use the Convention Center. Nevertheless, eight (8)
members of the City Council, understanding the potential legal ramifications, voted to
deny use of the Convention Center on personal, moral or religious beliefs. Id.
(5)
Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Texas and a resident of Dallas County. In his
capacity as a private citizen, Plaintiff invokes his right to participate in and receive
speech protected by the 1st Amendment. See, e.g., Reliable Consultants v. Ronnie Earle,
Page 3
(6)
Page 4 of 18 PageID 22
(7)
Plaintiff prays the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment holding that the
Constitutions First, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the Texas
Constitutions Article I, Sections 8 and 19.
SECTION NUMBER II: JURISDICTION AND VENUE OF THE COURT
(8)
Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A., 1983, and 1988 (West,
Defendants violated Plaintiffs U.S. Constitutional rights under the First, Fifth, Ninth and
Fourteenth Amendments and rights conferred by Article 1, Section 8 of the Texas
(9)
resolution violates Federal and State constitutional provisions, supra. Federal statute
confers jurisdiction over declaratory judgments. See, 28 U.S.C.A., 2201, 2002 (West,
2015) and FED. R. CIV. PROC., rule 57 (West, 2015).
(10)
Page 4
(11)
Page 5 of 18 PageID 23
Venue is appropriate in this Court. The various acts of which Plaintiff complains
occurred within the Northern District of the United States District Court.
SECTION NUMBER III: PARTIES
(13)
Plaintiff is a private citizen. Plaintiff may be served with process or legal paper
and documents at the following address: 5206 Compass Link, Suite 1506, Irving, Texas,
75039.
(14)
proprietorship. All claims, causes of action, damages, and relief afforded to Plaintiff in
his personal capacity are amenable equally to Plaintiff in his commercial profession.
(15)
political subdivision of the State of Texas. Summons may be served on Mayor Rawlins
at the following address: Office of the Mayor, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street,
Thomas, Erik Wilson, Jennifer Staubach Gates, Rickey Don Callahan, and Tiffinni
Young, are officials of the City of Dallas, Texas. Summons may be served on these
individuals at the following address: Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas,
75201.
(17)
Defendant City of Dallas, Texas is a political entity of The State of Texas and a
home rule city therein. Summons may be served on the City at the following address:
Ms. Rosa A. Rios, City Secretary, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas, 75201.
Page 5
Page 6 of 18 PageID 24
The Exxxotica expo appeared in several venues across the United Stated during
201 5. The nature of the exposition was a celebration of things and people erotic.
(19)
the Dallas exposition. Plaintiff owns and operates an adult-themed publication. Nothing
member of the general public was deceived by the speech or expression promoted by
Exxxotica.
(21)
The 2015 Exxxotica exposition was a huge success. It was an economic boon to
the City, the Convention Center, and local merchants and businesses. Moreover, the
exposition was free of any criminal activity or obscenity. Based on the positive results of
the 2015 show, city officials extended an invitation for Exxxotica to return to the
Convention Center in 2016; tentatively May 20-22.
(22)
Mayor Rawlings did not want Exxxotica to reprise its successful 2015 campaign.
On or about February, 2016, Rawlings directed the City Attorney draft a City Council
resolution denying Three Expo Events, LLC access to the Convention Center. This is
resolution became part of the February 10, 2016 Council agenda. The resolution ran
Page 6
Page 7 of 18 PageID 25
afoul of the Convention Centers Executive Directors approval for Exxxoticas return to
the facility.
(23)
At the February 10, 2016 City Council Meeting, the City Attorney advised the
1st
Moreover, Citys sexually oriented business ordinance did not apply to the exposition. A
police report indicated the 2015 exposition was completely crime-free and demonstrated
Despite
awareness of these facts, eight (8) City Council members passed the resolution ordering
the City Manager not contract with Three Expo Events to produce Exxxotica in 2016.
(24)
vendor, Plaintiff brings this cause of action to enforce those Constitutional liberties.
(25)
The ban on Exxxotica reduces the ability of citizens and commercial vendors to
access constitutionally protected speech and products and denies expression to those
wishing to engage in that speech. The ban not only impedes
thwarts privacy rights guaranteed by the Substantive Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitutions
14th
U.S. Supreme Court articulated these rights in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123
S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003).
(26)
The resolution violates also the Constitutional guarantees and procedural due
process right as a governmental ban drawn and enforced arbitrarily and subjectively by
officials relying not on legal bedrock, but a political and moral agenda disfavored by our
sense of ordered liberty and justice. The political officials that orchestrated Exxxoticas
ban are subject to political whim. They likely received instructions to deny access to
Page 7
Page 8 of 18 PageID 26
public facilities by legitimate commercial enterprises and private citizens not favored by
(27)
foregoing Complaint.
(28)
Defendants ban is subject to strict scrutiny; it violates the right to substantive due
14th Amendment.
Defendants resolution
1st Amendment
expression. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, cited supra. Moreover, Defendants resolution
restrains the liberty interest to engage in commercial speech, such speech being non
violative of the standard established by the Supreme Court. See, generally, Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419, 1973 U.S. 149 (1973); see,
also, Reliable Consultants v. Ronnie Earle, 517 F.3d 738 affirmed on rehearing en
banc,
538
F.3d
355
(2008)
(holding,
restricting
commercial
transactions
of the
is neither a sexually oriented business nor does Plaintiff engage in obscenity. Because of
Page 8
Page 9 of 18 PageID 27
Defendants prohibition on granting use of the Convention Center affects both the private
and commercial components of protected speech and infringes on private conduct.
(30)
Defendants possess no
Exxxotica is unconstitutional, both facially and as applied to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
(32)
of Defendants resolution against permitting Exxxotica to hold its exposition in the Kay
Bailey Convention Center, and permit Plaintiff to participate in the exposition as both a
(33)
foregoing Complaint.
(34)
The basis of Defendants ban constitutes an activity that runs totally counter to
the values, mores, and beliefs of the vast majority of the citizens of the City of Dallas.
See, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, (Feb. 6, 2015). This definition ignores the broad spectrum
Page 9
Page 10 of 18 PageID 28
and subject to strict scrutiny. Defendants ban imposes a complete denial of freedom of
expression for activity that was acceptable only one year earlier than the 2016 event.
discretion in municipal officials. Those officials deny permission to use a public facility
for a legal and warranted use. Defendants reliance on a chimera of values, mores, and
beliefs, eliminates unlawfully Plaintiffs ability to conduct his business and censors
protected expression in the City of Dallas.
(36)
commercial vendor and private citizen, and to those persons and businesses similarly
situated.
(37)
Defendants resolution, one that constitutes an activity and runs totally counter to
the values, mores, and beliefs of . . . the citizens of the City of Dallas, is not narrowly
tailored to affect only those businesses that cause adverse secondary effects on the
community. See, e.g., City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, 475 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 925,
89 L.Ed.2d (1986); Encore Videos, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, 330 F.2d 288 (5th Cir.,
2003), cert, denied, 540 U.S. 982 (2003), clarified, 352 F.2d 938 (5th Cir., 2003).
Page 10
(38)
Page 11 of 18 PageID 29
Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief; viz, a decision that the resolution extant
violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, both facially and as applied to
Plaintiff. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Defendants ban is
unenforceable against Plaintiff, Exxxotica, Three Expo Events, LLC, and those persons
and businesses similarly situated.
(39)
of the Defendants resolution against the Plaintiff and an order to issue Plaintiff and/or
Three Expo Events, LLC. a contract to conduct the Exxxotica expo in the Kay Bailey
(40)
foregoing Complaint.
(41)
processes. The resolution excuses Defendants from articulating clearly, cogently, and
legally the basis for denying access to a public facility to an organization and individuals
engaged in protected speech and expression.
justification for Defendants decision. In the case at bar, Defendants decisions depart
clearly from a logical extension of legal precedent.
(42)
The resolutions decision-making process violates the Due Process Clause of the
14th
Page 11
Page 12 of 18 PageID 30
beliefs burdens impermissibly Plaintiffs liberty, privacy, and speech, and is subject to
strict scrutiny. See, Stanley v. Georgia , 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542
(1969); see, also, Lawrence v. Texas, cited supra.
(43)
classification that is arbitrary, irrational, content based, and violative of the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitutions 14th Amendment.
(44)
Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief; viz, a decision that the process by which
the City Council enacted its resolution to deny Plaintiff access to a public facility is
invalid facially and as applied to Plaintiff and others similarly situated.
(46)
of the Defendants resolution against the Plaintiff and an order to issue Three Expo
Events, LLC a contract to conduct the Exxxotica exposition, instanter.
Claim 4 - Violation of the Texas Constitution
(47)
foregoing Complaint.
(48)
Defendants ban deprives Plaintiff the right to substantive and procedural due process.
Concomitant with Claims 1 and 3, supra, Defendants resolution infringes, restricts, and
Page 12
Page 13 of 18 PageID 31
hinders the penumbral right to privacy and imposes a presumption that Plaintiff engages
in unprotected
(49)
Defendants ban infringes on Plaintiffs commercial free speech rights concomitant with
Claim 2, supra.
(50)
of the Defendants resolution against the Plaintiff and an order to issue Three Expo
Events, LLC a contract to conduct Exxxotica, instanter, pursuant to Article I, Sections 8
foregoing Complaint.
(53)
Defendants prohibited Plaintiff and others from engaging in protected speech and
expression by denying a contract for the use of the Convention Center to Three Expo
Events, LLC.
(54)
private citizen at Exxxotica, even for a short period, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury
Page 13
(55)
Page 14 of 18 PageID 32
No remedy at law would suffice to protect Plaintiff for the reasons enumerated,
supra.
(56)
Injunctive and declaratory relief would serve the public interest. Unless the Court
grants the requested relief, Defendants will extinguish citizens rights to attend, purchase,
No substantial harm will result from the declarations and injunctive relief
requested. By granting declaratory and injunctive relief, a single trial will determine the
constitutionality of Defendants resolution. This solution promotes judicial efficiency
and conserves valuable judicial resources. Further, the requested relief preserves the
status quo.
foregoing Complaint.
(59) Defendants actions forced Plaintiff to retain the undersigned Counsel to represent
his legal interests. Plaintiff incurred costs and sustained damages including, but not
limited to, deprivation of constitutional rights, lost profits, loss of business goodwill, loss
of business opportunities, future business, attorney fees, and ancillary costs and expenses
associated with prosecuting this cause of action. Plaintiff claims reimbursement for all
direct and ancillary costs and expenses associated with this cause of action, including
attorney fees.
Page 14
(61)
Page 15 of 18 PageID 33
(2) Declare that the Defendants ban is unconstitutional, both facially and as
from enforcing their resolution against Plaintiff and all others similarly situated,
engage in protected speech and expression in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention
MR.
11 16rC<
Riel
lUPKIN, ESQ.
fee Drive
i, Texas 75081
Telkphine 972-261-8284
Facsimile 972-671-3671
Electronic Mail: krupkinlaw@gmail.com
Texas Bar Card Number: 00790010
Page 15
Page 16 of 18 PageID 34
Page 16
Page 17 of 18 PageID 35
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
M$e Rawlins,
Mr. Justin "Chino" Salas, a/k/a Justin Harp, 5206 Compass Link, Suite
Number 1506, Irving, Texas, 75039
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
Dallas
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X" in One Box for Plaintiff
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
54 3 Federal Question
U.S. Government
Defendant
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
PTF
(X 1
DEF
55 1
Citizen or Subject of a
PTF
Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business In This State
DEF
04
0 5
Foreign Nation
3 6
Foreign Country
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
1 52 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
0 310 Airplane
0 315 Airplane Product
Liability
O 320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
O 330 Federal Employers
Liability
O 340 Marine
O 345 Marine Product
Liability
O 350 Motor Vehicle
O 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
O 360 Other Personal
Injury
O 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
53 440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
O 365 Personal Injury'
Product Liability
O 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
O 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
690 Other
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
OTHER STATUTES
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
Confinement
55 1
Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
Remanded from
Appellate Court
5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Violation of 1st and 14th Amendments to O.S. Constitution, Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988
City of Dallas Mayor and City Council enacted a resolution banning use of a public facility in violation of 1st Amend.
DATE
DEMAND $
s
lOCKET NUMBER
None
:Y
02/22/2016
T
AMOUNT
APP1
IG IFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Page 18 of 18 PageID 36
(h)
(c)
II.
Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a govermnent agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III.
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV.
Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V.
VI.
Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII.
Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If a related case exists, whether pending or closed, insert
the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. A case is related to this filing if the case: 1) involves some or all of the same
parties and is based on the same or a similar claim; 2) involves the same property, transaction, or event; 3) involves substantially similar issues of law
and fact; and/or 4) involves the same estate in a bankruptcy appeal.
Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.