Health Clubs of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State ex rel. Austin
381 So. 2d 1174, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16332 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may permanently enjoin an entire business operation as a public nuisance if it finds that the business cannot be operated as a legitimate enterprise without permitting the illegal acts that constitute the nuisance.
Facts:
- Health Clubs of Jacksonville, Inc., operated a business purported to be a health club.
- The business was operated by Phillip Ranson, Raymond Cataldo, and Ioannis Diamondopoulos.
- The State's complaint alleged that the club's central business purpose was lewdness, specifically offering masturbation for compensation.
- The same complaint also mentioned that some seemingly legitimate activities, such as sponge bathing customers and providing exercise cycles and saunas, occurred at the club.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida sued Health Clubs of Jacksonville, Inc. and its operators in a Florida trial court, seeking to enjoin the business as a public nuisance.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the requested relief was overly broad.
- After a hearing where defendants offered no evidence, the trial court granted the State's application for a temporary injunction on December 13, 1978.
- The State later filed a petition alleging violations of the temporary injunction.
- After another hearing, the trial court found the defendants in civil contempt, fining them, and in criminal contempt, sentencing the individual defendants to six months in jail.
- After defendants failed to answer the complaint, the State moved for a default, which was entered by the clerk on March 22, 1979.
- Based on the default, the trial court entered a final order of permanent injunction on March 28, 1979, directing the Sheriff to shut down the premises.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion to set aside the default and vacate the permanent injunction.
- The defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's various orders to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a permanent injunction that completely shuts down a business as a public nuisance an overly broad remedy when the trial court finds the business's central purpose is lewdness and it cannot be operated legitimately?
Opinions:
Majority - Booth, J.
No, the permanent injunction is not overly broad. A permanent injunction completely shutting down a business is a proper remedy when the trial court finds that the illegal conduct is inseparable from the business's operation. The court applied the rule from Five Sky, Inc. v. State, which permits a court to deprive owners of the use of their property when necessary to abate a nuisance. While injunctions are typically limited to enjoining only illegal conduct, that rule applies only when the illegal conduct is separable from a legitimate business enterprise. Here, the trial court specifically found that the business 'could not be operated as a legitimate business without permitting acts of lewdness.' Because the defendants were afforded multiple opportunities to present evidence to the contrary and failed to do so, the trial court's finding and the resulting broad injunction were justified.
Concurring and Dissenting - Ervin, J.
Yes, the permanent injunction was overly broad. A default judgment, upon which the injunction was based, only admits to well-pleaded facts, and the State's own complaint alleged that both legal (e.g., exercise cycles, sauna) and illegal activities occurred on the premises. The relief granted should have been limited only to the specific illegal acts, as an injunction should never be broader than necessary. The burden was on the State to establish that the business was inseparable from the nuisance, not on the defaulting defendants to prove it could be operated legitimately. I also dissent from the criminal contempt judgment, as the defendants were not provided with procedural due process and adequate notice that they faced criminal, as opposed to merely civil, contempt charges.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that the scope of an injunction to abate a public nuisance depends on the separability of illegal acts from legitimate business operations. It solidifies the precedent from Five Sky, Inc., giving courts the authority to shut down an entire enterprise if lewdness or other illegal activity is found to be its central purpose rather than an incidental occurrence. The case underscores the significant evidentiary burden on defendants in such cases; their failure to demonstrate a viable, legitimate business model can be fatal and result in the complete loss of their property's use. This ruling provides a strong tool for prosecutors in nuisance abatement actions against businesses that function as fronts for illegal activities.
