Castaways Backwater Café, Inc. v. State of Florida Department of Business & Professional Regulations Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                         [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    ________________________        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    JANUARY 23, 2007
    No. 06-15065
    THOMAS K. KAHN
    Non-Argument Calendar
    CLERK
    ________________________
    D. C. Docket No. 05-00273-CV-FTM-29-SPC
    CASTAWAYS BACKWATER CAFÉ, INC.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
    AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS DIVISION
    OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO,
    GEOFF LUEBKEMANN,
    JOHN O. AGWUNOBI,
    PAT PARMER,
    SIMONE MARSTILLER,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Florida
    _________________________
    (January 23, 2007)
    Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    Castaways Backwater Café, Inc. (“Castaways”) appeals the district court’s
    dismissal with prejudice of its amended complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory
    relief and asserting that the Florida Clean Indoor Air Act (“FCIAA”), Fla. Stat. §
    386.01 et seq., was facially unconstitutional because it banned smoking in most
    indoor workplaces but included an exemption for smoking in “stand-alone bars.”1
    We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo; and we take as true
    the facts as alleged in the complaint. Owens v. Samkle Auto., Inc., 
    425 F.3d 1318
    ,
    1320 (11th Cir. 2005). After careful review, we affirm.
    In the amended complaint, Castaways alleged that the defendants, in their
    official capacities, had attempted to enforce the FCIAA and thereby prevent
    Castaways from allowing its patrons to smoke inside of its business premises.
    Castaways sought a declaration that the FCIAA created an unconstitutional, arbitrary,
    and capricious classification by distinguishing between restaurants and stand-alone
    bars and thereby violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution
    because the classification was not rationally related to a legitimate government
    1
    Castaways sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the Secretary of the Department
    of Business and Professional Regulations of the State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages
    and Tobacco; the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco; the Secretary of the
    Department of Health of the State of Florida; and the Director of the Division of Hotels and
    Restaurants of the Department of Business and Professional Regulations of the State of Florida.
    2
    purpose.2 The district court held that the Florida legislature’s stated objective in
    enacting the FCIAA -- to protect citizens from the health hazards of second-hand
    tobacco smoke -- satisfied rational-basis review because the distinction drawn
    between restaurants and stand-alone bars could legitimately be based on the regular
    presence of children in the former type of establishment but not the latter.
    In the instant case, no fundamental constitutional right and no suspect
    classification is involved. The Equal Protection Clause thus requires only that the
    challenged classification be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. See
    Lofton v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 
    358 F.3d 804
    , 818 (11th Cir.
    2004), cert. denied, 
    543 U.S. 1081
    (2005). “The central mandate of the equal
    protection guarantee is that ‘[t]he sovereign may not draw distinctions between
    individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate
    governmental objective.’” 
    Id. at 817
    (quoting Lehr v. Robertson, 
    463 U.S. 248
    , 265
    (1983)). Here, we readily conclude that the district court did not err in its Equal
    Protection analysis nor in its conclusion that the Legislature’s distinction between
    restaurants and stand-alone bars is rationally related to the legitimate interest of
    2
    Castaways also asserted the FCIAA violated of its substantive due-process, but has not
    appealed as to that claim.
    3
    protecting public health. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the amended
    complaint.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-15065

Judges: Marcus, Wilson, Pryor

Filed Date: 1/23/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024