Posted by: Patricia Salkin | January 6, 2011

Federal District Court finds Challenge Ordinance Regulating Sale of Alcohol Should be Brought in State Court

Plaintiff’s business serves food and alcohol in a commercial district.  Plaintiff was granted a special exception to become a “Supper Club” and was allowed to serve alcohol between the hours of 7:00 pm and 5:00 am.  But the City later enacted an ordinance which required alcohol sales to end at 3:00 am.  Plaintiff sought declaratory relief but later withdrew its lawsuit with prejudice. A year later, plaintiff brought a new action against the defendant seeking relief from the ordinance.  

The court remanded the case, however, based on the Pullman abstention doctrine because this case was not appropriate in federal court.  The question in the case concerned what effect the City ordinance had on Plaintiff’s business and as such, this would be more appropriate to be heard in state court.  The case was remanded and all motions were denied as moot. 

Moheb, Inc. v. City of Miami, Fla., 2010 WL 5209259 (S.D.Fla. 12/16/2010)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 854 other followers

%d bloggers like this: