With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". adult entertainment nightclub. Following a separate evidentiary hearing, the trial court awarded $9,600 in expert witness fees for Fleischmann’s services as costs. Appellant raises three points on appeal. First, appellant contends that the 1996 version of section 45-20 violated its right to exhibit adult dancing under the First Amendment. Second, appellant argues that the 1998 version of the ordinance also violates the First Amendment. Third, appellant argues that the trial court erred when it awarded the Village an expert witness fee of $9,600. We affirm. Initially, we hold that the Village’s 1998 amendment of the ordinance renders appellant’s challenge to the 1996 version of section 45-20 moot. See, e.g., Carchio v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 755 So.2d 668, 669-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (<HOLDING>); see also City of Boynton Beach v. Carroll,

A: holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended
B: holding that the challenge to the constitutionality of a 1996 fort lauderdale ordinance was moot where the ordinance had been amended in 1998
C: holding that the plaintiffs due process challenge to a city ordinance was barred because it was inextricably intertwined with a statecourt ruling that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the ordinance
D: holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff
B.