## Facts

- Terry Jorgenson and T.D.J., Inc. operated “Porky’s,” a lounge in unincorporated Volusia County, Florida that sold alcoholic beverages and featured topless dancing.
- Volusia County adopted Ordinance No. 86-1 prohibiting nude or semi-nude entertainment in commercial establishments where alcoholic beverages were sold or consumed on the premises.
- Jorgenson and T.D.J., Inc. sued Volusia County and the Sheriff, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO), preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, and declaratory relief against enforcement of the ordinance.
- Counsel for plaintiffs (Eric A. Latinsky and Fred W. Fendt) filed a memorandum supporting emergency injunctive relief challenging the ordinance, but did not cite or discuss two adverse, controlling authorities:
  - A Florida Supreme Court decision holding that Florida had delegated Twenty-First Amendment authority to local governments and that local alcohol-related ordinances regulating nude entertainment were entitled to a presumption of validity.
  - A U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that a state’s Twenty-First Amendment power over liquor licensing could justify bans on nude dancing in liquor-licensed premises.
- One of the sanctioned attorneys had participated as counsel in the Florida Supreme Court case that was omitted.
- Opposing counsel later brought the omitted authorities to the district court’s attention.
- The district court imposed Rule 11 sanctions for the omission; the Eleventh Circuit first remanded because sanctions were imposed without notice and an opportunity to respond.
- On remand, after notice and a hearing, the district court reaffirmed sanctions; the attorneys appealed again.

## Issues

1. Whether attorneys violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by filing a memorandum in support of TRO/preliminary-injunction relief that omits clearly controlling, adverse precedent central to the dispute.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing Rule 11 sanctions for failing to cite such authority, even though opposing counsel later cited it.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the reimposed Rule 11 sanctions.
- The court held that failure to cite the two clearly relevant, controlling adverse decisions supported sanctions under the circumstances.
- The court rejected the argument that opposing counsel’s later citation cured the omission, especially given the emergency posture where a TRO could issue before full adversarial presentation.
- The court concluded the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding a Rule 11 violation and imposing sanctions.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 11 requires attorneys to make objectively reasonable legal contentions and to avoid filings that mislead the court about controlling law.
- In seeking emergency injunctive relief, counsel must disclose clearly controlling, adverse authority that is central to the legal issue, particularly in a narrow area of law where such precedent is decisive.
- The duty to present controlling adverse authority is not discharged by the possibility that an opposing party will later supply the missing precedent.
- Appellate review of Rule 11 sanctions is for abuse of discretion; sanctions are upheld when the record supports an objectively unreasonable omission of controlling law.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Rule 11 sanctions against attorneys who, while seeking TRO and preliminary-injunction relief, omitted clearly controlling adverse precedent central to the Twenty-First Amendment framework governing alcohol-related nude-entertainment regulation, because the omission could mislead the court and was objectively unreasonable.


Jorgenson v. Cnty. of Volusia, 846 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1988)