Dist.Ct. did not err in dismissing as moot plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to prohibit defendant-Village from enforcing its ordinance that required plaintiff to seek special-use permit to operate strip club that sold alcohol, where plaintiff argued that said ordinance violated its First Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief was moot, where some months after defendant had denied plaintiff’s special use permit application, Illinois statute (65 ILCS 5/11-5-1.5) was enacted that would have precluded plaintiff from operating on subject property because it was within 1,000 feet of cemetery, school park, and/or church. As such plaintiff could not obtain any relief, even if it had prevailed in its federal constitutional challenge to defendant’s zoning ordinance. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s argument that law of case doctrine precluded Dist. Ct. from considering applicability of mootness doctrine, even though different Dist. Ct. judge found that plaintiff had “vested right” with respect to setback provision of defendant’s adult-use ordinance, and Ct. further rejected plaintiff’s claim that it had vested right to operate strip club, because at time plaintiff had applied for special-use permit, defendant’s ordinance expressly forbade plaintiff from operating proposed strip club.
