%PDF-1.3 %% %%Page: 1 1 4 0 obj << /Length 5 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm /F1 13 Tf 100 Tz 88.1395 -8.4 Td 1.3 Tw 0 Tc (FOR PUBLICATION) Tj /F1 15 Tf 100 Tz -78.2395 -24 Td 1.5 Tw (UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj 43.47 -16 Td (FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -53.37 -18 Td 1.2 Tw () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw 0 0 Td 183.8 0 Td /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -2.18 -17.6 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -181.62 -2.8 Td 1.2 Tw (A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, I) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NC) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (., ) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (AND) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (H) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (IGHLAND) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, I) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NC) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (., a) Tj 215.07 -9 Td (No. 09-55367) Tj -215.07 -4.2 Td (California corporation,) Tj 226.734 -9 Td (D.C. No.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -150.402 -4.2 Td (Plaintiffs-Appellees,) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.672 -9 Td (2:95-CV-7771-DDP) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz -18.384 -3.7 Td 2 Tw () Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -99.12 -5.3 Td 1.2 Tw (v.) Tj 151.836 -4.2 Td (\(CTx\)) Tj -234.336 -13.8 Td (C) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (ITY OF) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( L) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.2 Tw (, a municipal) Tj 224.34 -4.2 Td (OPINION) Tj -224.34 -9 Td (corporation,) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 70.344 -13.2 Td (Defendant-Appellant.) Tj /F3 20 Tf 100 Tz 111.276 -8.8 Td 1.6 Ts 2 Tw () Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -152.31 -26.2 Td 1.2 Tw (On Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj 30.87 -13.2 Td (for the Central District of California) Tj -20.832 -13.2 Td (Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding) Tj 55.122 -26.2 Td (Argued and Submitted) Tj -40.752 -13.2 Td (October 6, 2010Pasadena, California) Tj 39.486 -26.2 Td (Filed January 28, 2011) Tj -84.006 -26.2 Td (Before: Richard D. Cudahy,*) Tj ( Kim) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (McLane) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Wardlaw and) Tj 52.44 -13.2 Td (William) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (A.) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Fletcher, Circuit Judges.) Tj 23.73 -26.2 Td (Opinion by Judge Cudahy) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm 0 G .9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -123.5 m 186.6 -73.8 l s 1.2 w 186.6 -190.2 m 186.6 -140.5 l s .9 w 0 -197.15 m 183.3 -197.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 189.7 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 148.5 -1 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -138.5 -26 Td .15 Tw (*The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, Senior United States Circuit Judge) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 189.7 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 295 -664.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1739) Tj ET Q endstream endobj 5 0 obj 3182 endobj 3 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 4 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 2 2 12 0 obj << /Length 13 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 120.996 -157.4 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc (COUNSEL) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -120.996 -26.2 Td 1.66 Tw (Clyde DeWitt and Cathy E. Crosson, Law Offices of Clyde) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (DeWitt, for the plaintiffs-appellees.) Tj 0 -26.2 Td .96 Tw (Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Tayo A. Popoola, Dep-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .25 Tw (uty City Attorney, and Steven N. Blau, Deputy City Attorney,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (for the defendant-appellant.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 123.666 -44.2 Td (OPINION) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz -123.666 -26.2 Td (CUDAHY, Circuit Judge:) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1.54 Tw (The issue in this case is the district court's grant of sum-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 4.4 Tw (mary judgment against the City of Los Angeles on the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.88 Tw (grounds that the City's Ordinance for the dispersal of adult) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.05 Tw (entertainment businesses violates the First Amendment. We) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.87 Tw (reverse. ) Tj (The district court erred by granting summary judg-) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -137.95 m 300 -137.95 l s .5 w 0 -274.15 m 300 -274.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1742) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 13 0 obj 1663 endobj 11 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 12 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 3 3 15 0 obj << /Length 16 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .47 Tw 0 Tc (ment on the issue whether the plaintiffs had presented ) Tj (actual) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .41 Tw (and convincing) Tj ( evidence ) Tj (casting doubt) Tj ( on the City's ratio-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (nale for its Ordinance.) Tj 68.88 -26.3 Td (I.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Facts and Procedural History) Tj -56.88 -26.2 Td 1.57 Tw (The facts of this resilient case are not in dispute. Toward) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 4.63 Tw (the end of the 1960's the City of Los Angeles \(City\),) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .73 Tw (defendant-appellant, became concerned with a perceived pro-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .14 Tw (liferation of adult-themed) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( businesses. Acting on that concern,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .55 Tw (the City directed the Los Angeles Police Department to study) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.44 Tw (the effects of concentrations of adult businesses on crime in) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (the surrounding areas.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1 Tw (The Police Department \(L.A.P.D.\) report compared arrests) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.85 Tw (between 1969 and 1975 in Hollywood, an area where adult) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.81 Tw (entertainment businesses are concentrated, with those in the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (rest of Los Angeles in the same period. The L.A.P.D. deter-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .3 Tw (mined that crime rates grew at higher rates in Hollywood. For) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.75 Tw (instance, ) Tj (every Part I crime [including homicide, rape,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.32 Tw (aggravated assault and robbery] committed against a person,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .57 Tw (not against property, increased at a higher rate in [the] Holly-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 6.41 Tw (wood Area than in the City-wide total.) Tj ( In addition,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .41 Tw ([p]rostitution arrests increased at a rate 15 times greater than) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .87 Tw (the City average,) Tj ( and ) Tj (pandering arrests in [the] Hollywood) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (Area increased by 475.0 percent.) Tj ( From the L.A.P.D. data, the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.1 Tw (City concluded that concentrations of adult businesses are) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.78 Tw (associated with increased rates of prostitution, robbery,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (assault and theft in the surrounding area.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 2.87 Tw (In 1978, the City enacted an Ordinance, Ordinance No.) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .92 Tw (151,294, adding a new section to the Los Angeles Municipal) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 6.16 Tw (Code, L.A.M.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 6.16 Tw (12.70 \(1977\). Section 12.70 defined) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .71 Tw (numerous categories of ) Tj (adult entertainment businesses,) Tj ( and) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .35 Tw (1) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Consistent with prior opinions in this litigation, we adopt the linguistic) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .94 Tw (convention of the City Ordinance when discussing the subject matter the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (Ordinance regulates. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1743) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 16 0 obj 3629 endobj 14 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 15 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 4 4 19 0 obj << /Length 20 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2 Tw 0 Tc (required that they be geographically dispersed. Specifically,) Tj 0 -12.2 Td .25 Tw (no two adult entertainment businesses could be located within) Tj 0 -12.2 Td 1.2 Tw (1,000 feet of one another. L.A.M.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (12.70\(C\).) Tj 12 -24.4 Td 1.12 Tw (Of importance for this case, the Ordinance defined ) Tj (Adult) Tj -12 -12.2 Td .88 Tw (Arcade) Tj ( as an ) Tj (establishment where, for any form of consid-) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1 Tw (eration, one or more motion picture projectors . . . or similar) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .27 Tw (machines, for viewing by five or fewer persons each, are used) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 2.1 Tw (to show [adult-themed films].) Tj ( L.A.M.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.1 Tw (12.70\(B\)\(1\). An) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 2.14 Tw (Adult Bookstore) Tj ( was defined as an ) Tj (establishment which) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .53 Tw (has as a substantial portion of its stock-in-trade and offers for) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .97 Tw (sale . . . any one or more of the following: \(a\) [adult-themed) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .62 Tw (print media] or \(b\) [adult] [i]nstruments, devices or parapher-) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 3.18 Tw (nalia. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.18 Tw (12.70\(B\)\(2\). Pursuant to the 1978 Ordinance,) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .93 Tw (then, it was unlawful to operate an adult arcade within 1,000) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.2 Tw (feet of an adult bookstore.) Tj 12 -24.4 Td .2 Tw (A problem arose for the City when it realized that the Ordi-) Tj -12 -12.3 Td 2.84 Tw (nance did not explicitly prohibit the operation of an adult) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .71 Tw (arcade and an adult bookstore within the same establishment.) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.33 Tw (Therefore, in 1983 the City enacted Ordinance No. 157,538,) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.91 Tw (amending the language of the existing ordinance to remedy) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 8.46 Tw (this oversight. Specifically, L.A.M.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 8.46 Tw (12.70\(C\) was) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 3.07 Tw (amended to provide that no two adult entertainment busi-) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 2.63 Tw (nesses could operate at the same location. In addition, the) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 4.14 Tw (1983 amendments added L.A.M.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 4.14 Tw (12.70\(B\)\(17\), which) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.41 Tw (clarifies that each adult entertainment business as defined in) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 3 Tw (the Ordinance ) Tj (constitute[s] a separate adult entertainment) Tj 0 -12.3 Td .71 Tw (business[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .71 Tw (] even if operated in conjunction with another adult) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 4.33 Tw (entertainment business at the same establishment.) Tj ( Thus,) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 2.15 Tw (beginning in 1983, the L.A.M.C. unambiguously prohibited) Tj 0 -12.3 Td 1.2 Tw (the operation of an adult arcade within an adult bookstore.) Tj 12 -24.4 Td 1.08 Tw (Plaintiffs Alameda Books and Highland Books opened for) Tj -12 -12.3 Td .32 Tw (business in 1991 and 1993, respectively.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Both businesses sell) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -24.3 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .3 Tw (2) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The two plaintiffs were merged in 2002 into a single corporation, Bev-) Tj -10 -10.5 Td .6 Tw (erly Books, Inc., which operates the two stores. To be consistent with the) Tj 0 -10.5 Td 1.13 Tw (designations used throughout this prolonged litigation, we shall continue) Tj 0 -10.5 Td .5 Tw (to refer to the plaintiffs as Alameda Books and Highland Books. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Fed.) Tj 0 -10.5 Td 1 Tw (R. Civ. P. 25\(c\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -436.65 m 300 -436.65 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1744) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 20 0 obj 4286 endobj 18 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 19 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 5 5 22 0 obj << /Length 23 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 4.03 Tw 0 Tc (adult print media and videotapes, and both feature adult) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.21 Tw (arcades where customers can view videotapes for a fee.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.47 Tw (Therefore, both Alameda Books and Highland Books were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.71 Tw (and are adult bookstores containing an adult arcade, as) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.22 Tw (defined by the L.A.M.C. From the day they began operating) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (as combined adult retail and arcade establishments, then, both) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.57 Tw (businesses operated in violation of L.A.M.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.57 Tw (12.70. This) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (fact is uncontested.) Tj 12 -26.1 Td 4.16 Tw (Although their businesses were unlawful, the plaintiffs) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.61 Tw (operated without government interference for several years.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.03 Tw (On March 15 of 1995, a city inspector informed both parties) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.91 Tw (that they were violating the Ordinance. On November 16,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .48 Tw (1995, the plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.5 Tw (Central District of California, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.5 Tw (1983.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .75 Tw (They sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.95 Tw (enforcing the Ordinance against the plaintiffs would violate) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (their First Amendment rights.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .6 Tw (Subsequently, the district court granted summary judgment) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.67 Tw (in favor of the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that, when the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.1 Tw (City amended the Ordinance in 1983, it had no basis for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.08 Tw (believing that the operation of combined \(as opposed to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 5.78 Tw (neighboring\) adult businesses led to harmful secondary) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (effects. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books v. Los Angeles) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. CV 95-7771-DDP) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .25 Tw (\(CTx\), slip op. at 13 \(C.D. Cal. May 28, 1998\). The court fur-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.83 Tw (ther asserted that ) Tj ([t]he classification of certain adult enter-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.45 Tw (tainment activities as separate businesses . . . is subject to a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw ([heightened] standard of review because the City applies these) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .89 Tw (3) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California enjoined) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.26 Tw (the enforcement of the amended Ordinance in connection with litigation) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.35 Tw (involving another adult entertainment business. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Topanga Press, Inc.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .57 Tw (v. City of Los Angeles) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 989 F.2d 1524, 1526 \(9th Cir. 1993\), ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (cert. denied) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.19 Tw (511 U.S. 1030 \(1994\). A settlement following the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Topanga Press ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (litiga-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .5 Tw (tion included a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Ordi-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 4.5 Tw (nance against the ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Topanga Press ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (plaintiffs. The City settled with) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.46 Tw (additional adult entertainment business defendants in 1995, before the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (present case began. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1745) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 23 0 obj 4180 endobj 21 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 22 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 6 6 25 0 obj << /Length 26 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 5.75 Tw 0 Tc (definitions only to businesses that engage in protected) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .3 Tw (speech. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 20. The district court determined that the Ordi-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.85 Tw (nance failed to survive strict scrutiny, because the City had) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .66 Tw (not demonstrated that the ordinance was necessary to support) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .63 Tw (a compelling government interest. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 29. Therefore, it was) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .71 Tw (unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 33.) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 2.03 Tw (The City appealed from the grant of summary judgment,) Tj -12 -13.5 Td .3 Tw (and we affirmed the district court on alternative grounds. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ala-) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.57 Tw (meda Books, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 222 F.3d 719 \(9th) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2 Tw (Cir. 2000\). In particular, we held that the question whether) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .55 Tw (L.A.M.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .55 Tw (12.70\(C\) is content-based or content-neutral need) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .97 Tw (not be reached, because the Ordinance fails to meet even the) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.41 Tw (more permissive intermediate scrutiny that would apply to a) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.37 Tw (content-neutral regulation. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 723. Although the City had) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.9 Tw (a ) Tj (substantial . . . interest) Tj ( in reducing crime, the City had) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .13 Tw (failed to show that the Ordinance was ) Tj (designed to serve) Tj ( this) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .97 Tw (interest. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 723-24. This was true because the 1977 Study) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 3.47 Tw (focused only on the effect of establishments concentrated) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.7 Tw (within a particular area, and had nothing to say about the) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.83 Tw (effects of businesses within the same establishment. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (724-25.) Tj 12 -26.7 Td 2.24 Tw (The Supreme Court reversed this decision and remanded) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 1.78 Tw (the case in a plurality decision. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (City of Los Angeles v. Ala-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .18 Tw (meda Books, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 535 U.S. 425 \(2002\). In doing so, the Court) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .62 Tw (established a new framework for reviewing ordinances aimed) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .75 Tw (at reducing the secondary effects of adult entertainment busi-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (nesses.) Tj 12 -26.6 Td 1.55 Tw (Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion reaffirmed the three-) Tj -12 -13.4 Td .3 Tw (part framework established in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (City of Renton v. Playtime The-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.73 Tw (atres, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 475 U.S. 41 \(1986\), for determining the legality) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .91 Tw (under the First Amendment of restrictions on adult entertain-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .58 Tw (ment businesses. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 535 U.S. at 433. The Court) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .71 Tw (then prescribed a three-part burden-shifting test for determin-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1746) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 26 0 obj 3910 endobj 24 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 25 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 7 7 28 0 obj << /Length 29 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.53 Tw 0 Tc (ing whether a regulation meets the third step) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Renton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td .96 Tw (test, which requires the restriction to serve a substantial gov-) Tj 0 -13 Td 4.14 Tw (ernment interest. The burden-shifting framework provides) Tj 0 -13 Td .84 Tw (that after a municipality satisfies its burden of supplying evi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.12 Tw (dence supporting its rationale for passing an ordinance, the) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.75 Tw (plaintiffs may attempt to ) Tj (cast doubt) Tj ( on the municipality's) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.81 Tw (evidence and rationale, after which the municipality may) Tj 0 -13 Td .75 Tw (attempt to rehabilitate its rationale. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 535 U.S.) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (at 438-39.) Tj 12 -25.8 Td 1.85 Tw (The four-member plurality of the Court further explained) Tj -12 -13 Td .48 Tw (that contrary to our decision, it was reasonable for the City to) Tj 0 -13 Td .6 Tw (infer from the 1977 study that a concentration of adult opera-) Tj 0 -13 Td .84 Tw (tions in a single establishment will lead to increased undesir-) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.81 Tw (able effects. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 436-37. The plurality concluded it was) Tj 0 -13 Td .4 Tw (error to require the City to present evidence not only showing) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.21 Tw (that the Ordinance will reduce undesirable effects, but also) Tj 0 -13 Td .16 Tw (demonstrating that such evidence does not support some other) Tj 0 -13 Td .58 Tw (method of reducing undesirable effects. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 438. Therefore,) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.66 Tw (the 1977 study provided an adequate rationale for the Ordi-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.55 Tw (nance, which satisfied the first step of the new ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( burden-shifting framework. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 439, 442.) Tj 12 -25.8 Td .91 Tw (Justice Kennedy wrote separately in concurrence with Jus-) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.85 Tw (tice O'Connor's plurality opinion. Because he expressed a) Tj 0 -13 Td .38 Tw (conditional agreement with the plurality, his narrower reason-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.4 Tw (ing is the only reasoning that commands the majority of the) Tj 0 -13 Td .45 Tw (Court, and has been treated as binding. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Ctr. for Fair Pub.) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.28 Tw (Policy v. Maricopa Cnty.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 336 F.3d 1153, 1161 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.05 Tw (2003\) \() Tj (Justice Kennedy's concurrence may be regarded as) Tj 0 -13 Td .87 Tw (the controlling opinion.) Tj (\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Marks v. United States) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 430) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.2 Tw (U.S. 188 \(1976\)\).) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.7 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.43 Tw (4) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The first step is to inquire whether the regulation bans the protected) Tj -10 -11 Td .06 Tw (speech altogether, or whether it can be viewed as a time, place and manner) Tj 0 -11 Td 1.03 Tw (restriction. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Dream Palace v. Cnty. of Maricopa) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 384 F.3d 990, 1013) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.79 Tw (\(9th Cir. 2004\). If the latter obtains, then the second step is to inquire) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .48 Tw (whether the regulation is designed to remedy secondary effects of speech,) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (and therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Id) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -422.55 m 300 -422.55 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1747) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 29 0 obj 4346 endobj 27 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 28 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 8 8 32 0 obj << /Length 33 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 2 Tw 0 Tc (Most important for our purposes, Justice Kennedy's con-) Tj -12 -13 Td 2.33 Tw (currence provided that ) Tj (a city must advance some basis to) Tj 0 -13 Td 2.27 Tw (show that its regulation has the purpose and effect of sup-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.14 Tw (pressing secondary effects, while leaving the quantity and) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.16 Tw (accessibility of speech substantially intact.) Tj ( 535 U.S. at 449.) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.51 Tw (Put another way, ) Tj ([a] city may not assert that it will reduce) Tj 0 -13 Td .12 Tw (secondary effects by reducing speech in the same proportion.) Tj () Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13 Td 1.7 Tw (Id) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. Justice Kennedy reasoned that ) Tj ([i]t is no trick to reduce) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.3 Tw (secondary effects by reducing speech or its audience.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (450. Applying that principle to the present facts, the concur-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .38 Tw (rence explained that, ) Tj (the premise [underlying the Ordinance]) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1 Tw (must be that businesses even those that have always been) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.18 Tw (under one roof will for the most part disperse rather than) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (shut down.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( at 451. Taken as a whole, then, the Supreme) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .41 Tw (Court's ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( opinion requires courts to employ the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (new burden-shifting framework when applying the traditional) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.32 Tw (Renton ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (analysis, and provides that a municipality's justifica-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3 Tw (tion must not be that its regulation will reduce secondary) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.11 Tw (effects simply by reducing speech proportionately. However,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.41 Tw (the application of such a principle is not as simple as might) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (appear.) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.3 Tw (The Supreme Court remanded the case, and we, in turn,) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.96 Tw (remanded it to the district court. 295 F.3d 1024 \(9th Cir.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (2002\). Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to postpone brief-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (ing and discovery until certain other Ninth Circuit cases inter-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.57 Tw (preting the Supreme Court ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (decision were) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.66 Tw (decided. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, No. CV 95-7771 DDP \(CTx\),) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108860, at *9 \(C.D. Cal. July 16,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.21 Tw (2008\). This agreement is responsible for the lengthy interval) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.25 Tw (between the 2002 Supreme Court remand and the district) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (court's 2008 re-adjudication.) Tj 12 -26 Td 2.71 Tw (In 2007, the district court entertained the parties' cross-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 2.57 Tw (motions for summary judgment. The court's decision thor-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .55 Tw (oughly and meticulously discusses the history of the case and) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .74 Tw (other relevant case law before reaching the merits. In consid-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.42 Tw (ering the parties' summary judgment motions, the district) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1748) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 33 0 obj 3958 endobj 31 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 32 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 9 9 35 0 obj << /Length 36 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.41 Tw 0 Tc (court made several threshold decisions of importance to this) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .85 Tw (appeal. First, the court struck the second of two) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( declarations) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .28 Tw (by the City's expert witness Vanita Spaulding, a business val-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.37 Tw (uation professional, who offered a declaration to the effect) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.46 Tw (that it would be possible to split a previously joined adult) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .04 Tw (arcade business and adult bookstore business while preserving) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (the economic viability of the arcade. She arrived at this con-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.42 Tw (clusion by analyzing the plaintiffs' financial statements. She) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.83 Tw (analyzed the profitability of their retail businesses and their) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.52 Tw (arcade businesses by analyzing the existing data for each of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1 Tw (the two kinds of businesses, as currently operated. She made) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .32 Tw (no attempt to determine the extent, if any, to which the physi-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .46 Tw (cal association of the two kinds of business contributed to the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (profitability of either one.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td .04 Tw (The plaintiffs argued that Spaulding's declaration should be) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .7 Tw (stricken because it would confuse the issues and cause undue) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.72 Tw (delay under Fed. R. Evid. 403, would not assist the trier of) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .37 Tw (fact under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and because it lacked foundation) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (under Fed. R. Evid. 703.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 3 Tw (The district court found that Spaulding's testimony was) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .63 Tw (confined only to the profitability of adult arcades which were) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.56 Tw (part of adult retail establishments. But the fact that an adult) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.91 Tw (arcade is profitable when physically joined to another adult) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .23 Tw (business, did not, in the district court's view, fairly lead to the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.3 Tw (conclusion that an adult arcade could operate profitably as a) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.4 Tw (free-standing unit. The court noted that ) Tj (the question in this) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.77 Tw (case is not whether the arcade portion of the combination) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .58 Tw (business is profitable . . . [but] whether the arcade as a stand-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .55 Tw (alone business will continue to exist once unmoored from the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.93 Tw (bookstore component.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2008 U.S. Dist.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.41 Tw (LEXIS 108860, at *37-38. The court further stated that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.91 Tw (Spaulding had no basis for concluding that patrons would) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.78 Tw (5) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Vanita Spaulding's first declaration, which the district court did not) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 2.04 Tw (strike, addresses the existence of alternative avenues for viewing adult) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (entertainment. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1749) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 36 0 obj 3824 endobj 34 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 35 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 10 10 38 0 obj << /Length 39 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .77 Tw 0 Tc (visit a free-standing arcade business because she did not pur-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.27 Tw (port to have any specific knowledge of the industry and had) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.03 Tw (not interviewed business owners or customers. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at *38-39.) Tj 12 -26 Td .2 Tw (Nevertheless, the district court did not find Spaulding's sta-) Tj -12 -13 Td .55 Tw (tistics to be incredible. Rather, the court described her review) Tj 0 -13 Td .47 Tw (of the costs and expenses of the retail and arcade components) Tj 0 -13 Td .06 Tw (of the combined stores, as ) Tj (an analysis with which no one dis-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.71 Tw (agrees. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. at *51. Therefore, despite striking Spaulding's) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .8 Tw (declaration, the court accepted that the arcade components of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (the plaintiffs' businesses as presently operated are quite prof-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .85 Tw (itable, accounting for approximately one-half of the revenues) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (of the combined businesses and the majority of the stores' net) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.13 Tw (income. Thus, even if this evidence is not admissible for the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.63 Tw (immediate purpose intended, it may be useful in a more) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (extended analysis.) Tj 12 -26 Td 3.33 Tw (The district court's second important threshold decision) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 0 Tw (was to reject the City's objections to declarations by the plain-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .25 Tw (tiffs' two witnesses, William Andrus and Rick Hinckley. Wil-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 4.03 Tw (liam Andrus is the vice-president of Beverly Books, the) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (corporation which now owns Alameda Books and Highland) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.56 Tw (Books. He testified that he has been involved in the adult) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.71 Tw (entertainment retail business for twenty years. He further) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .33 Tw (opined that a stand-alone adult arcade would not be profitable) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.12 Tw (because many current users of the arcade are retail patrons) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.06 Tw (considering a purchasing decision, conveniently accommo-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.15 Tw (dated by a retail store in the same premises. In addition, a) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (stand-alone adult arcade would be viewed to be ) Tj (seedy) Tj ( like) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.95 Tw (adult movie theaters, most of which went out of business) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .67 Tw (when prerecorded adult videos became available. He testified) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.09 Tw (in conclusion that, ) Tj (I have never seen or heard of a business) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (that existed only as an adult arcade.) Tj () Tj 12 -26 Td 2.44 Tw (Rick Hinckley is the president of Video Simplex, a San) Tj -12 -13.1 Td .95 Tw (Diego company that builds and installs adult arcade systems.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.07 Tw (The company installed the adult arcade systems in both Ala-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .96 Tw (meda Books and Highland Books, and Hinckley was person-) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1750) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 39 0 obj 3646 endobj 37 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 38 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 11 11 41 0 obj << /Length 42 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.41 Tw 0 Tc (ally involved in those installations. He also testified, like) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .44 Tw (Andrus, that the consensus of those in the adult entertainment) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .63 Tw (industry was that a stand-alone adult arcade would not attract) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .17 Tw (a significant number of customers because many current users) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.77 Tw (are retail patrons considering whether to purchase merchan-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td .51 Tw (dise available in a retail store located in the same premises as) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 3.3 Tw (an arcade. He repeated the observation that a stand-alone) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.88 Tw (adult arcade, like an adult motion picture theater, would be) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (viewed as ) Tj (seedy.) Tj () Tj 12 -25.3 Td 2.08 Tw (Both the Andrus and Hinckley declarations are brief and) Tj -12 -12.7 Td .48 Tw (unelaborated. Neither Andrus nor Hinckley purported to offer) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.55 Tw (any empirical support for the shared position that a stand-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2.1 Tw (alone adult arcade would not be viable. The content of the) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 2 Tw (declarations is strikingly similar, and certain important pas-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.5 Tw (sages are identical. For example, Andrus and Hinckley each) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.2 Tw (declared, verbatim, as follows:) Tj 22 -25.3 Td 3.28 Tw ([A] stand-alone adult arcade has the same image) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.47 Tw (problem as do auditorium adult motion picture the-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.12 Tw (atres, which have become all but extinct because of) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 0 Tw (that problem [or ) Tj (reason) Tj (], namely, that they are per-) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1 Tw (ceived by the public as ) Tj (seedy) Tj ( and as attracting an) Tj 0 -12.7 Td 1.32 Tw (undesirable element of customers, an image that no) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .57 Tw (longer attaches to adult retail businesses, which tend) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 7.26 Tw (to be more aesthetically attractive.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz ([Footnote]) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( That) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 6.8 Tw (explains why free-standing adult theaters \(i.e.,) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .67 Tw (auditorium-style theaters\) nearly vanished beginning) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.23 Tw (as prerecorded home adult videotapes became more) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 4.14 Tw (widely available. Although such businesses were) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.83 Tw (reasonably profitable during the 1970s, as prere-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.45 Tw (corded adult videotapes became more widely avail-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .37 Tw (able during the 1980s, nearly all of them went out of) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 2.38 Tw (business, the few remaining being those that were) Tj 0 -12.8 Td .71 Tw (annexed to adult book and video stores, as presently) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 1.2 Tw (are all adult arcades.) Tj -22 -25.3 Td .85 Tw (The text of the footnote referenced midway through this pas-) Tj 0 -12.8 Td 3.78 Tw (sage and dealing with the increasingly ) Tj (couples-oriented) Tj () Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1751) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 42 0 obj 3536 endobj 40 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 41 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 12 12 44 0 obj << /Length 45 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 2.11 Tw 0 Tc (nature of adult entertainment retail is also identical in both) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (declarations.) Tj 12 -27 Td .28 Tw (The City objected to the Andrus and Hinckley declarations,) Tj -12 -13.6 Td 3.38 Tw (not alleging explicitly that the declarants were potentially) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.95 Tw (biased, but instead that their testimony was speculative and) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .14 Tw (lacking in foundation. But the district court rejected the City's) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.75 Tw (arguments, observing that Andrus and Hinckley, ) Tj (with their) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .17 Tw (decades of experience owning and operating the specific busi-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .88 Tw (nesses at issue in this case and their knowledge of the indus-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 3.18 Tw (try, have sufficient foundation to testify that they are not) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 3.81 Tw (aware of any stand-alone arcade ever existing.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.07 Tw (Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108860, at *47-48. Because) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .77 Tw (the declarants were testifying as to their understanding of the) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.55 Tw (industry, and not to a scientific process of causation, their) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .67 Tw (industry experience was ) Tj (all the foundation necessary.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .78 Tw (49. The district court acknowledged that both witnesses were) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.9 Tw (closely associated with a party to the litigation, but did not) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.81 Tw (address the obvious bias of these witnesses relating to their) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (close association and apparent financial interest.) Tj 12 -27 Td .25 Tw (Applying the second step) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( of the Supreme Court's ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda) Tj -12 -13.6 Td 1.24 Tw (Books ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (burden-shifting framework, the district court held that) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.57 Tw ([p]laintiffs' evidence casts the requisite doubt) Tj ( because the) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.42 Tw (Andrus and Hinckley declarations ) Tj (suggest[) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.42 Tw (] that the City's) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.5 Tw (intent in passing the ordinances was to reduce secondary) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .71 Tw (effects by closing arcades impermissibly `reducing speech) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.03 Tw (in the same proportion.') Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 2.03 Tw ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 49 \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 3.41 Tw (535 U.S. at 449 \(Kennedy, J., concurring\)\). Since Vanita) Tj 0 -13.5 Td .75 Tw (Spaulding's declaration had been struck, there remained little) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.44 Tw (with which the City could rebut the plaintiffs' evidence that) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 2.57 Tw (the Ordinance ran afoul of Justice Kennedy's concurrence.) Tj 0 -13.5 Td 1.2 Tw (Thus, the district court ruled,) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.6 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .71 Tw (6) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (As noted above, the Supreme Court had held that the 1977 Study was) Tj -10 -11.5 Td 1.23 Tw (sufficient foundation for the City's Ordinance under the first step of the) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -11.5 Td 1 Tw (Alameda Books ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (framework. 535 U.S. at 436-37. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -454.45 m 300 -454.45 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1752) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 45 0 obj 4062 endobj 43 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 30 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 44 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 13 13 47 0 obj << /Length 48 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 0 Tw 0 Tc (Defendant now bears the burden to present some evi-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.46 Tw (dence that arcades could survive on their own. The) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.48 Tw (City has not made this showing. Instead, the City) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .61 Tw (relies on the [sic] Vanita Spaulding's Second Decla-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .38 Tw (ration, which reviews the revenue and expenses gen-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 6.91 Tw (erated and incurred by the arcade and retail) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .25 Tw (components . . . . However, as already discussed, her) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (declaration is not admissible.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -26.4 Td 1.24 Tw (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at *51-52. The court went on to conclude that ) Tj ([t]here is) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .47 Tw (. . . no question of material fact but that Los Angeles Munici-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 4.38 Tw (pal Code section 12.70\(C\) cannot withstand intermediate) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .1 Tw (scrutiny, and that it violates the First Amendment.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at *60-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .32 Tw (61. Accordingly, the district court granted summary judgment) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (for the plaintiffs. The City filed a timely appeal.) Tj 99.414 -26.4 Td (II.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Applicable Law) Tj -86.304 -26.4 Td (A.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (First Amendment Framework Post-) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz -1.11 -26.3 Td .28 Tw ([1]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj .28 Tw (Following ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, the test for the constitution-) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 3.25 Tw (ality under the First Amendment of a dispersal ordinance) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .75 Tw (relating to adult businesses remains that prescribed in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Renton) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.96 Tw (v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 475 U.S. 41 \(1986\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (7) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( We have) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (encapsulated that test recently as follows:) Tj 22 -26.3 Td .78 Tw (First, we must determine whether the regulation is a) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.78 Tw (complete ban on protected expression. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Renton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 475) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.25 Tw (U.S. at 46. Second, we must determine whether the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.28 Tw (county's purpose in enacting the provision is the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.07 Tw (amelioration of secondary effects. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 47. If so, it) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.03 Tw (is subject to intermediate scrutiny, and we must ask) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (whether the provision is designed to serve a substan-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz -12 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .87 Tw (7) Tj 0 Ts /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See Ctr. for Fair Pub. Policy) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 336 F.3d at 1164 \() Tj (Because five mem-) Tj -10 -11.2 Td 1.34 Tw (bers of the Supreme Court agreed that `the central holding of ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Renton ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (is) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.49 Tw (sound' we apply the traditional three-part test in order to determine the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (constitutionality of [an ordinance].) Tj (\). ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1753) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 48 0 obj 3895 endobj 46 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 47 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 14 14 51 0 obj << /Length 52 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 22 -8.4 Td 4.54 Tw 0 Tc (tial government interest, and whether reasonable) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.26 Tw (alternative avenues of communication remain avail-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.2 Tw (able. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -27.5 Td (Dream Palace) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 384 F.3d at 1013.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -27.5 Td 0 Tw ([2]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 0 Tw (The Supreme Court's ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (plurality clarified) Tj -12 -13.9 Td 3.1 Tw (the ) Tj (substantial government interest) Tj ( standard of the third) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 3.03 Tw (step of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Renton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, by prescribing the burden-shifting test we) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.2 Tw (have noted:) Tj 22 -27.5 Td .51 Tw (If plaintiffs fail to cast direct doubt on this rationale,) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 1.55 Tw (either by demonstrating that the municipality's evi-) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .75 Tw (dence does not support its rationale or by furnishing) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 4.86 Tw (evidence that disputes the municipality's factual) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 3.93 Tw (findings, the municipality meets the standard set) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .28 Tw (forth in ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Renton) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (. If plaintiffs succeed in casting doubt) Tj 0 -13.9 Td 2.28 Tw (on a municipality's rationale in either manner, the) Tj 0 -13.9 Td .51 Tw (burden shifts back to the municipality to supplement) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .5 Tw (the record with evidence renewing support for a the-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (ory that justifies its ordinance.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -22 -27.5 Td (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 535 U.S. at 438-39.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -27.4 Td 2.86 Tw ([3]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 2.86 Tw (Justice Kennedy's concurrence slightly modifies this) Tj -12 -13.8 Td 4.78 Tw (burden-shifting framework by narrowing the universe of) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 2.95 Tw (allowable municipal rationales to support an ordinance. In) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .84 Tw (particular, ) Tj ([a] city may not assert that it will reduce second-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.18 Tw (ary effects by reducing speech in the same proportion.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ala-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 3.96 Tw (meda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 535 U.S. at 449 \(Kennedy, J., concurring\).) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .6 Tw (Justice Kennedy went on to elucidate what this means for the) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.81 Tw (present dispersal statute: ) Tj (The claim . . . must be that [the]) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .33 Tw (ordinance will cause two businesses to split rather than one to) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.62 Tw (close, that the quantity of speech will be substantially undi-) Tj 0 -13.8 Td .21 Tw (minished, and that total secondary effects will be significantly) Tj 0 -13.8 Td 1.2 Tw (reduced.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Id. ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (at 451.) Tj 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1754) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 52 0 obj 3472 endobj 50 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 51 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 15 15 54 0 obj << /Length 55 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -8.4 Td 2.51 Tw 0 Tc (In addition, the City raises a statute of limitations argu-) Tj -12 -13 Td .51 Tw (ment. The statute of limitations applicable to an action pursu-) Tj 0 -13 Td 3.53 Tw (ant to 42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 3.53 Tw (1983 is the personal injury statute of) Tj 0 -13 Td .42 Tw (limitations of the state in which the cause of action arose. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13 Td .8 Tw (Wallace v. Kato) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 549 U.S. 384, 387 \(2007\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (DeGrassi v. City) Tj 0 -13 Td .76 Tw (of Glendora) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 207 F.3d 636, 644 \(9th Cir. 2000\). The Califor-) Tj 0 -13 Td 1.1 Tw (nia limitations period applicable in this case is one year. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13 Td .84 Tw (Maldonado v. Harris) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 370 F.3d 945, 954-55 \(9th Cir. 2004\).) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 110.172 -25.9 Td 1.2 Tw (III.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Discussion) Tj -68.622 -25.9 Td (A.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Vanita Spaulding's Second Declaration) Tj -29.55 -26 Td 1.96 Tw (As a threshold issue, we do not upset the district court's) Tj -12 -13 Td 1.37 Tw (decision to strike Vanita Spaulding's declaration pursuant to) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.53 Tw (Federal Rule of Evidence 403, Exclusion of Relevant Evi-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .22 Tw (dence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.66 Tw (and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, Testimony by Experts,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.2 Tw (because the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.) Tj 12 -26 Td .81 Tw (The district court properly perceived that allowing Spauld-) Tj -12 -13.1 Td 1.14 Tw (ing's testimony as to the viability of stand-alone adult enter-) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 3.5 Tw (tainment arcades would confuse the issues under Fed. R.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .97 Tw (Evid. 403 because it is based on evidence of the profitability) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .14 Tw (of adult arcades only when combined with an adult bookstore.) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.1 Td 1.75 Tw (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108860, at *40-41.) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.71 Tw (Similarly, the court properly excluded her declaration under) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 1.23 Tw (Fed. R. Evid. 702 in view of her unsupported assumption of) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 5.28 Tw (a relationship between the current profitability of adult) Tj 0 -13.1 Td 2.62 Tw (arcades and their viability as free-standing units. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See, e.g.,) Tj 0 -13.1 Td .1 Tw (McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 845 F.2d 802, 806-07 \(9th Cir.) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -25.8 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 3.18 Tw (8) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Although the California personal injury statute of limitations was) Tj -10 -11.1 Td .98 Tw (extended to two years in 2003, ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (see ) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (2002 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 448 \(S.B.) Tj 0 -11.1 Td .7 Tw (688\) \(West\), Cal. Civ. Proc. Code ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj .7 Tw (335.1, an extension of the California) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.89 Tw (statute of limitations does not apply to claims under 42 U.S.C. ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.89 Tw (1983) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1.53 Tw (already barred. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (Maldonado) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (, 370 F.3d at 955. If the plaintiffs filed their) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 2.19 Tw (complaint untimely in 1995, the extension of the limitations period in) Tj 0 -11.1 Td 1 Tw (2003 would not redeem it. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -411.25 m 300 -411.25 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1755) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 55 0 obj 4180 endobj 53 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 54 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 16 16 57 0 obj << /Length 58 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 5.18 Tw 0 Tc (1988\). Finally, the district court properly observed that) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.16 Tw (Spaulding had no experience or familiarity with the adult) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .46 Tw (entertainment industry. Therefore, excluding Spaulding's sec-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.5 Tw (ond declaration was a permissible exercise of the district) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (court's discretion over the admissibility of evidence.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 6.144 -26.2 Td 1.2 Tw (B.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Step Two of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( Framework: Casting) Tj 128.856 -13.2 Td (Doubt) Tj -123 -26.2 Td 3.1 Tw (The district court erred, however, by granting summary) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.81 Tw (judgment at the second step of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( analysis) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.05 Tw (based on the Andrus and Hinckley declarations, because that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.71 Tw (court treated these declarations as ) Tj (actual and convincing) Tj () Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.8 Tw (enough to justify summary judgment despite their obvious) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.37 Tw (and important shortcomings, and because the court did not) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.46 Tw (consider the declarants' facial bias. To provide context for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .05 Tw (this holding, it is instructive to review how we have dealt with) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.61 Tw (similar adult-entertainment cases reaching this stage of the) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( framework.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 3.78 Tw ([4]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 3.78 Tw (Although we have interpreted the Supreme Court's) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz -12 -13.2 Td .52 Tw (Alameda Books ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (decision on several occasions, we have yet to) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.33 Tw (hold that a plaintiff has succeeded in ) Tj (casting doubt) Tj ( on the) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.11 Tw (city's evidence or rationale. It emerges from these cases that) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.87 Tw (to succeed in ) Tj (casting doubt) Tj ( on a city's evidence or ratio-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.36 Tw (nale, a plaintiff must do more than point to a municipality's) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.18 Tw (lack of empirical evidence, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Ctr. For Fair Pub. Policy) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 336) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .17 Tw (F.3d at 1168, or challenge the methodology of the municipali-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.1 Tw (ty's evidence, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Gammoh v. City of La Habra) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 395 F.3d 1114,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .57 Tw (1126-27 \(9th Cir. 2005\). When a municipality offers multiple) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.46 Tw (rationales in support of an ordinance, the plaintiff must) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .43 Tw (address each one. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Fantasyland Video, Inc. v. Cnty. of San) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .13 Tw (Diego) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 505 F.3d 996, 1002 \(9th Cir. 2007\); ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (World Wide Video) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .69 Tw (v. City of Spokane) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 368 F.3d 1186, 1196 \(9th Cir. 2004\). The) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .35 Tw (9) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Having so held, we do not address the court's alternative reasoning for) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .12 Tw (excluding Vanita Spaulding's second declaration pursuant to Fed. R. Evid.) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (703. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1756) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 58 0 obj 4122 endobj 56 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 57 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 17 17 60 0 obj << /Length 61 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.58 Tw 0 Tc (Sixth Circuit has explained that the plaintiffs bear a heavier) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.33 Tw (evidentiary burden in attempting to ) Tj (cast doubt) Tj ( than the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .06 Tw (municipality does in justifying the ordinance at the outset, and) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.36 Tw (that the plaintiffs' burden will not be carried by ) Tj (anecdotal) Tj () Tj 0 -13.2 Td 4.78 Tw (or ) Tj (unsystematic) Tj ( evidence. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Richland Bookmart v. Knox) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Cnty.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 555 F.3d 512, 527-28 \(6th Cir. 2009\).) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 3.57 Tw ([5]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 3.57 Tw (An important common element in these cases with) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.72 Tw (respect to the second step of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( is that to suc-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .12 Tw (cessfully ) Tj (cast doubt) Tj ( on a municipality's rationale, a plaintiff) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.21 Tw (must offer not merely evidence, but ) Tj (actual and convincing) Tj () Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (evidence. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See Fantasyland Video, Inc) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (., 505 F.3d at 1001 \(cit-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.58 Tw (ing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 535 U.S. at 439\). Such evidence ) Tj (must) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.08 Tw (do more than challenge the government's rationale; it must) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .42 Tw (convincingly discredit the foundation upon which the govern-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.71 Tw (ment's justification rests.) Tj ( ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .4 Tw (612 F.3d 736, 747 \(4th Cir. 2010\) \(citing ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Giovani Carandola,) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (Ltd. v. Bason) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 303 F.3d 507, 516 \(4th Cir. 2002\)\).) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td .55 Tw ([6]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj .55 Tw (We are not satisfied that the plaintiffs' evidence in this) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .83 Tw (case was ) Tj (actual and convincing) Tj ( enough to justify summary) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 3.88 Tw (judgmentand we emphasize that the procedural posture) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 0 Tw (here was summary judgment. The district court did not explic-) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.5 Tw (itly reach a contrary conclusion. Rather, the court dismissed) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .66 Tw (the lack of specific factual foundation in the declarations, did) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.25 Tw (not mention that they contain lengthy passages of identical) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .47 Tw (text and did not discuss at all the facial bias of the declarants.) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.3 Tw (Rather, the district court seemed to opine that no evidence) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.71 Tw (must yield to some evidenceno matter how superficially) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (frail and unexaminedto support a summary judgment.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.2 Td 1.14 Tw ([7]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj 1.14 Tw (The district court's failure to take into account as part) Tj -12 -13.2 Td .33 Tw (of its explicit analysis the bias of the plaintiffs' witnesses was) Tj 0 -13.2 Td .2 Tw (a significant oversight.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( The credibility of witnesses is almost) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz 1.82 Tw (10) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (In so observing, we are not deterred by the City's failure to argue) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .63 Tw (articulately that the declarants are less ) Tj (convincing) Tj ( in view of their rela-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .99 Tw (tionship to the plaintiffs. The potential bias problem, it seems to us, was) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1757) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 61 0 obj 4395 endobj 59 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 60 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 18 18 63 0 obj << /Length 64 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 1.08 Tw 0 Tc (categorically a trial issue, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (see SEC v. M & A West, Inc) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (., 538) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .5 Tw (F.3d 1043, 1054-55 \(9th Cir. 2008\), which means that, if bias) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .73 Tw (is an evident factor, summary judgment is not generally indi-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 2.37 Tw (cated. The existence of credibility issues on material ques-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .5 Tw (tions means that plaintiffs cannot short-circuit the ) Tj (actual and) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.5 Tw (convincing) Tj ( language of ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( and its progeny by) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .3 Tw (seeking to have their case resolved at summary judgment. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .6 Tw (Anderson) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 477 U.S. at 254 \() Tj ([I]n ruling on a motion for sum-) Tj 0 -13.7 Td 1.46 Tw (mary judgment, the judge must view the evidence presented) Tj 0 -13.7 Td .91 Tw (through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden.) Tj (\). If) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .14 Tw (this ) Tj (actual and convincing) Tj ( language is to be meaningful, the) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.25 Tw (district court must consider whether the plaintiffs have com-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.63 Tw (plied with it before resolving the case in their favor. This) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.11 Tw (means considering ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (inter alia) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( the patent biases of the plain-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .28 Tw (tiffs' witnesses, since evidently biased testimony is not gener-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.8 Tw (ally convincing. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See United States v. Abel) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 469 U.S. 45, 52) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.96 Tw (\(1984\). Here, the extent to which the Andrus and Hinckley) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.28 Tw (declarations are ) Tj (convincing) Tj ( is diminished by their obvious) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.3 Tw (self-interest: one declarant is the vice-president of a party to) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .05 Tw (this litigation, and the other is the president of a Southern Cal-) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.47 Tw (ifornia company that installs adult arcades, including those) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .52 Tw (owned by the plaintiff. The content of the declarations strikes) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.2 Tw (us as plausible, but the sources are necessarily suspect.) Tj 12 -27.1 Td .25 Tw (Moreover, as the City has argued, the Andrus and Hinckley) Tj -12 -13.6 Td 2.95 Tw (declarations actually establish very little. Neither declarant) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.33 Tw (offers any empirical data in support of his conclusion. Their) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .25 Tw (testimony amounts to a conclusory assertion that they work in) Tj 0 -13.6 Td .48 Tw (the industry, and we should take them at their word that adult) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.67 Tw (arcades could not survive as stand-alone businesses because) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 1.4 Tw (they would be perceived as too ) Tj (seedy.) Tj ( We do not see any) Tj 0 -13.6 Td 2.53 Tw (support, other than the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (ipse dixit ) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (of the declarants, for the) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 0 -26.7 Td .15 Tw (obvious even if not advanced articulately by the City. The district court) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 0 Tw (was aware of, and in fact recited in its memorandum, the close relationship) Tj 0 -11.5 Td .7 Tw (between the plaintiffs and their witnesses. The court was thus required to) Tj 0 -11.5 Td 1 Tw (consider this prominent problem in weighing the plaintiffs' evidence. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -442.85 m 300 -442.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1758) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 64 0 obj 4151 endobj 62 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 49 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 63 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 19 19 66 0 obj << /Length 67 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td .92 Tw 0 Tc (asserted relationship between the seediness of an adult enter-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td .36 Tw (tainment venue and its ability to stay in business. This lack of) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.66 Tw (substantiation is more problematic when viewed in the con-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 2.12 Tw (text of the arcades' profitability, as demonstrated in Vanita) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 7.6 Tw (Spaulding's financial analysis. The Spaulding analysis) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.3 Tw (showed the arcades to be profitable in their present forms, a) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.22 Tw (relevant step in a more in-depth examination of their perfor-) Tj 0 -13.4 Td 1.2 Tw (mance in isolation.) Tj /F1 12 Tf 100 Tz 12 -26.5 Td .41 Tw ([8]) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz () Tj 3 Tw ( ) Tj .41 Tw (Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the) Tj -12 -13.4 Td 2.21 Tw (City, the plaintiffs' two declarations are weakened by their) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .5 Tw (not insignificant verbatim repetition and are affected by obvi-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .17 Tw (ous bias. The district court should have at least recognized the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.47 Tw (bias problem in determining whether they successfully ) Tj (cast) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (doubt) Tj ( on the City's rationale for its Ordinance. At trial, the) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .6 Tw (frailties of this evidence and its conformity to the ) Tj (actual and) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .91 Tw (convincing) Tj ( standard of the ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Alameda Books) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( framework pres-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .3 Tw (ent an issue of material fact that might be examined, but sum-) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.2 Tw (mary judgment is not indicated.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .5 Tw (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 84.96 -26.4 Td 1.2 Tw (C.) Tj 9 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw (Statute of Limitations) Tj -72.96 -26.4 Td .1 Tw (Finally, we must turn briefly to the City's argument that the) Tj -12 -13.3 Td 3 Tw (plaintiffs filed suit untimely under the one-year California) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .58 Tw (statute of limitations. This argument is readily disposed of by) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .2 Tw (the City's waiver. A statute of limitations is subject to waiver,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.63 Tw (including by a government defendant in a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.63 Tw (1983 case. ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (See,) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 2.14 Tw (e.g.) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, ) Tj /F4 12 Tf 100 Tz (Lucchesi v. Bar-O Boys Ranch) Tj /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz (, 353 F.3d 691, 696-97) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 3.03 Tw (\(9th Cir. 2003\) \(assuming that a waiver by a government) Tj 0 -13.3 Td 1.66 Tw (defendant in a ) Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.66 Tw (1983 case is possible, although not finding) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .48 Tw (waiver under the circumstances\). Here, the City did not argue) Tj 0 -13.3 Td .53 Tw (the statute of limitations in its May 31, 2007 motion for sum-) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26.2 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .62 Tw (11) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (Although the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment,) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .5 Tw (this does not preclude us from finding that the case cannot be adjudicated) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.17 Tw (without a trial. ) Tj /F4 10 Tf 100 Tz (See ) Tj (United States v. Fred A. Arnold, Inc) Tj /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (., 573 F.2d 605,) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .91 Tw (606 \(9th Cir. 1978\). We feel all the less obliged to provide for summary) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (adjudication given the important public issues involved in the case. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 434 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1759) Tj -202.025 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 67 0 obj 4114 endobj 65 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F4 9 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 66 0 R >> endobj %%Page: 20 20 70 0 obj << /Length 71 0 R >> stream q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -8.4 Td 3.78 Tw 0 Tc (mary judgment, and the district court's opinion does not) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 2.1 Tw (address it.) Tj 4.9 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz (12) Tj 0 Ts /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz ( There may also have been waiver at an earlier) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (point, but this May 2007 waiver was the latest and clearest.) Tj 12 -26.2 Td 1 Tw (We REVERSE the district court's grant of summary judg-) Tj -12 -13.2 Td 1.9 Tw (ment in favor of the plaintiffs, and REMAND this case for) Tj 0 -13.2 Td 1.2 Tw (further proceedings.) Tj 1 0 0 1 156 268.1 Tm /F2 12 Tf 100 Tz 0 -1 Td 1.2 Tw 0 Tc () Tj 0 Tw ( ) Tj 1.2 Tw /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz 10 -26 Td 4.1 Ts /F5 6 Tf 100 Tz .6 Tw (12) Tj 0 Ts /F2 10 Tf 100 Tz (The City raised the statute of limitations before the district court, and) Tj -10 -11.2 Td .85 Tw (suffered an adverse ruling in a January 11, 1998 order denying both par-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.36 Tw (ties' motions for summary judgment. The court ruled that ) Tj ([b]ecause of) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.3 Tw (the continuing nature of First Amendment injuries, the Court rejects the) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .91 Tw (City's statute of limitations defense.) Tj ( The City apparently did not appeal) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1.18 Tw (from this determination, and we did not address it in our first encounter) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 2.05 Tw (with the case. It was not among the questions for which the Supreme) Tj 0 -11.2 Td .75 Tw (Court granted certiorari, and the Supreme Court accordingly did not con-) Tj 0 -11.2 Td 1 Tw (sider it. ) Tj ET Q q 1 0 0 1 156 268.1 cm 0 G .5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s Q q BT 0 Tr 0 g 1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 156 -136.5 Td 1.1 Tw 0 Tc (1760) Tj 75.975 0 Td (A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (LAMEDA) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( B) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OOKS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( v. L) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (OS) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts 1.1 Tw ( A) Tj /F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz .79 Tw (NGELES) Tj /F2 11 Tf 100 Tz 0 Ts ET Q q 1 0 0 1 0 792 cm 0 G .5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s Q endstream endobj 71 0 obj 2176 endobj 69 0 obj << /Type /Page /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] /Parent 68 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F5 17 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> /Contents 70 0 R >> endobj 1 0 obj [ /PDF /Text ] endobj 72 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 73 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Bold /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 139.00 /StemH 69.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 676 /XHeight 461 /Ascent 676 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 6 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F1 /BaseFont /Times-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300 250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500 930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778 611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500 333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500 556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400 722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556 667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000 389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722 722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ] /Encoding 72 0 R /FontDescriptor 73 0 R >> endobj 74 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 75 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Roman /Flags 34 /FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 84.00 /StemH 42.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 662 /XHeight 450 /Ascent 683 /Descent -217 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 7 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F2 /BaseFont /Times-Roman /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300 250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444 921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722 556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500 333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500 500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400 667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722 611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611 444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556 611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ] /Encoding 74 0 R /FontDescriptor 75 0 R >> endobj 76 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 240 /apple ] >> endobj 77 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Symbol /Flags 4 /FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 85.00 /StemH 42.50 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 0 /XHeight 0 /Ascent 0 /Descent 0 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 8 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F3 /BaseFont /Symbol /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444 549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722 768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500 500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549 549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603 400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658 823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713 768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603 494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494 790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ] /Encoding 76 0 R /FontDescriptor 77 0 R >> endobj 78 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 79 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Times-Italic /Flags 98 /FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 76.00 /StemH 38.00 /ItalicAngle -15.50 /CapHeight 653 /XHeight 441 /Ascent 683 /Descent -205 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 9 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F4 /BaseFont /Times-Italic /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300 250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500 920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722 611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500 333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500 500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400 667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611 611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611 500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500 611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500 500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333 889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980 333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ] /Encoding 78 0 R /FontDescriptor 79 0 R >> endobj 80 0 obj << /Type /Encoding /Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf ] >> endobj 81 0 obj << /Type /FontDescriptor /FontName /Helvetica-Bold /Flags 32 /FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ] /MissingWidth 250 /StemV 140.00 /StemH 70.00 /ItalicAngle 0.00 /CapHeight 718 /XHeight 532 /Ascent 718 /Descent -207 /Leading 0 /MaxWidth 0 /AvgWidth 0 >> endobj 17 0 obj << /Type /Font /Subtype /Type1 /Name /F5 /BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold /FirstChar 0 /LastChar 255 /Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333 278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611 975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778 667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556 278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611 611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400 722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722 667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667 556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611 667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333 1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000 278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722 722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ] /Encoding 80 0 R /FontDescriptor 81 0 R >> endobj 10 0 obj << /Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 82 0 R >> endobj 30 0 obj << /Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 82 0 R >> endobj 49 0 obj << /Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R] /Count 6 /Type /Pages /Parent 82 0 R >> endobj 68 0 obj << /Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R] /Count 2 /Type /Pages /Parent 82 0 R >> endobj 82 0 obj << /Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R] /Count 20 /Type /Pages /MediaBox [0 0 612 792] >> endobj 2 0 obj << /Type /Catalog /Pages 82 0 R >> endobj 83 0 obj << /CreationDate (Wednesday January 26, 2011 13:09:42) /Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2) /Producer (ECMP5) >> endobj xref 0 84 0000000000 65535 f 0000080722 00000 n 0000093466 00000 n 0000003308 00000 n 0000000044 00000 n 0000003285 00000 n 0000082187 00000 n 0000084839 00000 n 0000086393 00000 n 0000089040 00000 n 0000092914 00000 n 0000005270 00000 n 0000003522 00000 n 0000005246 00000 n 0000009178 00000 n 0000005464 00000 n 0000009154 00000 n 0000091691 00000 n 0000013755 00000 n 0000009384 00000 n 0000013731 00000 n 0000018237 00000 n 0000013972 00000 n 0000018213 00000 n 0000022449 00000 n 0000018454 00000 n 0000022425 00000 n 0000027097 00000 n 0000022666 00000 n 0000027073 00000 n 0000093030 00000 n 0000031357 00000 n 0000027314 00000 n 0000031333 00000 n 0000035483 00000 n 0000031574 00000 n 0000035459 00000 n 0000039433 00000 n 0000035702 00000 n 0000039409 00000 n 0000043261 00000 n 0000039640 00000 n 0000043237 00000 n 0000047616 00000 n 0000043469 00000 n 0000047592 00000 n 0000051815 00000 n 0000047835 00000 n 0000051791 00000 n 0000093147 00000 n 0000055591 00000 n 0000052034 00000 n 0000055567 00000 n 0000060075 00000 n 0000055810 00000 n 0000060051 00000 n 0000064501 00000 n 0000060294 00000 n 0000064477 00000 n 0000069200 00000 n 0000064720 00000 n 0000069176 00000 n 0000073655 00000 n 0000069419 00000 n 0000073631 00000 n 0000078061 00000 n 0000073862 00000 n 0000078037 00000 n 0000093264 00000 n 0000080541 00000 n 0000078280 00000 n 0000080517 00000 n 0000080755 00000 n 0000081907 00000 n 0000083407 00000 n 0000084559 00000 n 0000086055 00000 n 0000086127 00000 n 0000087605 00000 n 0000088757 00000 n 0000090255 00000 n 0000091407 00000 n 0000093353 00000 n 0000093522 00000 n trailer << /Size 84 /Root 2 0 R /Info 83 0 R >> startxref 93659 %%EOF 3 0 obj << /Type /Page /Annots [ 87 0 R 89 0 R 91 0 R ] /Contents [ 84 0 R 86 0 R 88 0 R 90 0 R ] /MediaBox [ 0 0 612 792 ] /Parent 10 0 R /Resources << /Font << /F1 6 0 R /F2 7 0 R /F3 8 0 R /F4 9 0 R /HelvCBC~1376380513 85 0 R >> /ProcSet 1 0 R >> >> endobj 84 0 obj << /Filter [ /FlateDecode ] /Length 1094 >> stream xWMsHS#IfFl7UaD_?hwk[6]M7Z }vnDŽ(+?7)PDZ Ѷ0'5Pv