Orange County commissioners filed a lawsuit against property owners Tuesday for the site of a topless club that was forced to close after a vice investigation revealed that a 15-year-old girl frequently engaged in sexually explicit dancing. If they agree to settle the lawsuit, they could reopen soon.
The board will be asked to accept an agreement negotiated by attorneys for the Orange County Attorney's Office and the partners in the land trust that owns 2201 South Orange Blossom Trail. The land trust has operated as a strip club for 40 years under different names, most recently “Flash Dancer.”
Tax Collector Scott Randolph said based on the findings of a Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation investigation that led to the arrest of club owner and operator William Sheeler, 66, and other management employees on child trafficking charges. , revoked Flash Dancer's adult entertainment license in 2023. Commercial sex acts. All have maintained their innocence, but if found guilty they could face life in prison.
According to court records, the girl performed at the club more than 50 times for tips over a two-year period starting at age 15.
According to court records, the girl, whose identity is protected in court documents, lied to performers about her date of birth as 20 years old and persuaded other dancers to “vouch” and provide identification. He said that he went on stage without doing anything. she for her.
Investigators alleged that club managers exploited her financial interests by charging her a “house fee” in exchange for tips.
But a lawsuit filed by a Tampa attorney hired by the land trust says the property owners are not involved in operating the strip club and that Randolph, which issues licenses under the county's adult entertainment ordinance They claimed that their property rights had been “wrongfully extinguished” by Mr.
Tax Collector's Office spokesman Eddie Ayala said Randolph properly followed county administrative regulations.
The suspension and revocation, which has now been in effect for a year, resulted in the site losing its “nonconforming use” designation, which is required under county law for establishments to obtain an adult entertainment license. This designation does not require the agency to notify the facility owner.
County attorneys pointed out that while the license holder and property owner are often the same legal entity, that is not the case in this case.
Tampa attorney Shami Dixit argued in a filing that without an adult entertainment license, the facility would be worthless.
Court filings say the license revocation cost the property owners an estimated $1.65 million in “adult entertainment income” and “provocative performances,” which attorneys for the property owners called a constitutionally protected form of expression. It is also alleged that the
If commissioners agree to amend the Adult Entertainment Ordinance by adding required notice to property owners before suspending or revoking licenses, the county would not have to pay a “settlement” to the land trust. Both parties will be responsible for paying their own attorney's fees.
The settlement restores the property's previous “nonconforming use” status and allows the property owner or new tenant to apply for an adult entertainment license through the Collector's Office. However, a memorandum provided to commissioners by County Attorney Jeff Newton states that dismissing the land trust's claim is contingent on the tax collector issuing a new license.
shudak@orlandosentinel.com