## Facts

- Flava Works, Inc. operated a business producing and distributing sexually explicit adult content through a website and paid online access.
- The business used a residential house in Miami where adult performers stayed and where sexual performances were recorded and streamed to paying customers.
- The City of Miami treated the house as an “adult entertainment” or “adult use” establishment under its zoning code and concluded it was operating in an impermissible location and/or without required approvals.
- The City issued enforcement notices or orders directing cessation of the adult-use activity at that property.
- Flava Works asserted the operation was primarily internet-based production occurring in a residence and argued the zoning classification and enforcement burdened protected expression.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the City’s adult-use zoning provisions.
2. Whether Flava Works showed a substantial likelihood of success that the City’s application of the ordinance violated the First Amendment.
3. Whether the residential property’s activities fit the ordinance’s definitions of regulated “adult entertainment” or similar adult-use categories despite the lack of walk-in customers and the online distribution model.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Flava Works failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
- The court accepted that the City could treat the property as a regulated adult use based on the commercial, on-site production and streaming of sexually explicit performances.
- Because likely success on the merits was not shown, the court concluded the remaining preliminary-injunction factors did not warrant relief, including claimed irreparable injury.

## Legal Principles

- A preliminary injunction requires proof of: (1) substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent relief, (3) a balance of harms favoring the movant, and (4) consistency with the public interest; failure on any factor permits denial.
- Municipal zoning limits on adult businesses may be treated as content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations when aimed at combating adverse secondary effects rather than suppressing expression.
- In applying adult-use zoning definitions, courts may look to the actual on-site conduct and commercial function of the property, not merely the operator’s characterization or the fact that distribution occurs online.
- In First Amendment preliminary-injunction requests, allegations of irreparable harm depend on showing a likely constitutional violation; without likely success on the merits, irreparable harm is not established for purposes of preliminary relief.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that Miami could apply its adult-use zoning scheme to a residence used as a commercial site for producing and streaming sexually explicit content and that Flava Works had not met the threshold showing needed to enjoin enforcement while the case proceeded.


Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami, 609 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010)