Mistrial Won’t Deter Fight for Nude Club

Despite a recent mistrial in his case, a Simi Valley businessman who has been pushing local authorities to let him open a nude dance club plans to continue his legal battle in federal court, his attorney said Tuesday.

Last week, a jury deadlocked 6 to 3 on a lawsuit Phil Young brought against the city of Simi Valley alleging that its regulations limiting the location of adult entertainment clubs violated his civil rights.

After a nearly two-week trial in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the jury could not reach a consensus, with the majority siding with the city, according to Simi Valley City Atty. John Torrance.

“The jury hung, there was no verdict,” Torrance said. “The next move is up to Mr. Young and his attorney.”

Although deadlocked on the central issue, the jury concluded that the city’s ordinance did not prevent Young from opening his business elsewhere in Simi Valley, Torrance said.

“We have taken the position all along that we have a valid ordinance and nothing that happened down in the court changes our view of that,” Torrance said.

Young, a real estate manager, has twice lost bids to open a strip club in western Simi Valley because of the restrictive ordinance, which prohibits adult businesses from operating within 1,000 feet of schools, churches or religious organizations.

Most recently, Young’s request to open a dance club called the Mirages Cabaret on Los Angeles Avenue was denied by both the city’s Planning Commission and City Council on the grounds it would be too close to two sensitive businesses: a karate studio that caters to teens and a Bible school.

Reached by phone Tuesday afternoon, Young’s Santa Monica-based attorney, Roger Diamond, said the case is far from over.

“We have a number of options,” Diamond said, explaining that his client plans either to request a second trial before another jury or to ask a judge to resolve the matter.

Either way, Diamond said, he is confident that the case is still winnable--particularly in light of statements made by some jurors after the mistrial was declared May 23.

“Clearly, the first vote was seven to one,” in favor of Young, Diamond said of the jury’s position at the beginning of deliberations. One juror was undecided, he said.

“We are going to go forward,” he said. “I think that justice is on his side.”