City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.

Does the burden-shifting framework for evaluating the First Amendment constitutionality of a dispersal ordinance relating to adult businesses, established in an earlier decision in this matter, Alameda Books v. City of Los Angeles, 535 U.S. 425 (2002), require upholding a municipal zoning ordinance which prohibits the operation of more than one adult entertainment business at a single location when plaintiffs challenging the regulation cannot, at the summary judgment stage of proceedings, produce "actual and convincing" evidence casting "direct doubt" on the city's rationale for the regulation?