DALLAS — Exxxotica counsel filed an amended complaint in its suit against the City of Dallas, paring 11 city officials as defendants from the suit and alleging additional facts that might help the adult entertainment expo’s case for a preliminary injunction.
In previous court filings, Dallas, which blocked the adult entertainment show from a new contract at its municipal convention center, said that the adult exhibition was blacklisted because it violated its previous contract after they claimed city officials found evidence of public lewdness at its first and last event in the Texas city in August.
Exxxotica, which had planned to stage a three-day exhibition at the convention center on May 20-22, is seeking approval for a preliminary injunction against the City of Dallas.
Exxxotica’s amended complaint, filed last night, now names only one defendant in the suit — the City of Dallas — and also clarifies the second count of the original complaint is predicated on the Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment, without references to procedural and substantive due process.
The City of Dallas, in rebuttal to the motion for preliminary injunction, said that Exxxotica did not allege sufficient facts to state an equal protection claim.
However, Exxxotica counsel added specific factual allegations to the third count of the amended complaint in response to the city’s argument.
“Defendants argue that plaintiff’s claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should be dismissed because it ‘does not allege any facts indicating that the defendants treated plaintiff differently from any similarly situated persons,’” Exxxotica counsel said. “Plaintiff disagrees. It, nevertheless, has amended its complaint to include additional factual allegations in support of its equal protection claim.”
Specifically, the amended complaint alleges:
- “Defendant has owned and operated the municipal convention center since 1957 and allows members of the public to lease the convention center for exhibitions, trade shows, expos and other events. Members of the public similarly situated to plaintiff have leased and held trade shows and events similar to plaintiff’s expo, but on different topics and themes.”
- “Defendant denied plaintiff access to and use of the convention center because it objected to the content and subject matter of the expression at plaintiff’s expo, thereby discriminating against plaintiff and treating it differently from other similarly situated citizens who are permitted to hold their trade shows and expos on other topics and themes at the convention center. By its action, defendant has denied plaintiff equal protection of the laws."
- “The actions of the defendant have deprived plaintiff of rights and liberty interests protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiff, therefore, has been and is being subjected to unequal treatment under the law in violation of the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment."
U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater has scheduled an April 18 hearing in the case.
