![]() ![]() 1-7.) Ultimately, in October 2016, O’Connell publicly withdrew the Ordinance, and, in May 2017, Metro’s Sexually Oriented Business License Board approved a license for the operation of Deja Vu’s new club at 1418 Church Street. 1-6.) O’Connell hoped that the Ordinance would trigger a larger conversation about adult entertainment in Nashville and would refocus these adult entertainment businesses away from downtown Nashville. BL2016-350 (the “Ordinance”), which sought to eliminate “adult entertainment” as a permissible land use for the zone where Deja Vu sought to operate its new establishment. ![]() ![]() at 6.) After Deja Vu purchased the property, Metro Council Members Freddie O’Connell and Bob Mendes introduced Ordinance No. at 5-6.) In the summer of 2016, Deja Vu entered into a purchase agreement for a location at 1418 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee, which was zoned for “adult use.” (Id. 1 at 2.) In early 2016, Deja Vu sold its original location at 1214 Demonbreun Street, Nashville, Tennessee to third-party developers and began relocation efforts. Factual Background Deja Vu is a Nashville business engaged “in the presentation of female performance dance entertainment to the consenting adult public.” (Doc. 17, 25) will be granted and Schipani’s Motion to Strike (Doc. For the following reasons, Defendants’ and Schipani’s Motions to Dismiss (Doc. 39), to which Defendants have replied (Doc. To the extent that Molette’s “Joinder” is a motion, it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Accordingly, Molette is required to file a separate Motion to Dismiss with an accompanying Memorandum of Law. Crenshaw, Jr., Middle District of Tennessee, (last visited Feb. Additionally, the Court’s “Judicial Preferences” clearly states “ounsel should never incorporate legal authority or factual argument from another document, including a prior brief or the brief of another party in the case.” Judicial Preferences, Chief Judge Waverly D. (Id.) Under Local Rule 7.01, any Court action that requires resolution of an issue of law must be performed pursuant to a party’s motion and separate memorandum of law. 23.) Molette states that his position is the same as Schipani, and, therefore, he “hereby joins Schipani’s Motion to Dismiss, adopts all argument that Defendant Schipani made in the Schipani Motion to Dismiss, applies them herein, and respectfully requests the same relief articulated therein.” (Id.) Nowhere in Molette’s one-page “Joinder” does he identify the document as a “Motion for Joinder” or give any indication that he is a moving party. 26, 28, 1 Lee Molette has filed a one-page “Joinder In Defendant Schipani’s Motion to Dismiss And Memorandum In Support of Defendant Linda Schipani’s Motion to Dismiss.” (Doc. 1 Deja Vu of Nashville (“Deja Vu”) and The Parking Guys (“TPG”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) have filed responses to the instant motions (Doc. 36), in addition to Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (“Metro”) and Freddie O’Connell’s (collectively “Defendants”) combined Motion to Dismiss (Doc. ![]() 3:18-cv-00511 CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW MEMORANDUM OPINION Pending before the Court are Linda Schipani’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, et al., Defendants. 51 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION DEJA VU OF NASHVILLE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al Doc. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |