Gwinnett County has asked a judge to shut down a store that sells sexual devices.
In a lawsuit filed earlier this month in Superior Court, the county seeks an injunction ordering the store, Tokyo Valentino, to cease operating an adult establishment on Pleasant Hill Road near the Gwinnett Place Mall. The lawsuit says the store is operating in a zoning district that does not permit adult stores.
It’s the latest legal salvo between the county and Tokyo Valentino. They also are squaring off in federal court, where the store argues, among other things, that Gwinnett is violating its First Amendment right to free speech.
Gwinnett County does not comment on pending litigation, and a spokesman referred The Atlanta Journal-Constitution to its lawsuit filings.
Cary Wiggins, an attorney for Tokyo Valentino, said the new lawsuit came as a surprise.
“I am disappointed that the county has chosen to sue a business which has pleaded with the county for constructive advice on how to advertise, display and sell marital-aid devices so as not to offend the county,” Wiggins said.
Tokyo Valentino opened last July as a tobacco, apparel and novelty store. Later, it began selling sexually explicit media and sexual paraphernalia.
Gwinnett officials say the store needs an adult entertainment license. They also imposed a moratorium on such licenses while they reviewed county ordinances.
Tokyo Valentino filed the federal lawsuit, saying Gwinnett deprived the store of its right to due process. The lawsuit also said the county’s adult licensing and zoning codes were vague and violated First Amendment protections of erotic speech.
The county Board of Commissioners later revised Gwinnett's ordinances to limit stores that sell sexual devices to properties zoned for manufacturing. Tokyo Valentino operates on property zoned commercial.
In January, a U.S. District Court judge dismissed the federal lawsuit, ruling that the county ordinances at issue had been replaced by new ones, so the store’s legal claim is moot.
Tokyo Valentino appealed that decision. It says the county’s improper enforcement of the original ordinance has damaged its business. It also wants to file an amended complaint challenging the new ordinance.
The case is pending before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
About the Author
