Lexra, Inc. v. City of Deerfield Beach, Florida

Case: 15-10686 Date Filed: 07/01/2016 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10686
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:12-cv-61928-WPD
LEXRA, INC.,
d.b.a El Reventon,
PORTHOLE PUB, INC.,
d.b.a Porthole,
JSPC, INC.,
d.b.a Dr. Philgoods,
TROPICANTE PRODUCTS, INC.,
d.b.a Tropicante,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA,
a Florida Municipal Corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 1, 2016)
Case: 15-10686 Date Filed: 07/01/2016 Page: 2 of 4
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and SILER, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Following a review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we
affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action on mootness grounds. Simply
stated, the factual basis for the plaintiffs’ equal protection claim—that All Stars
Sports Bar was permitted to stay open until 4:00 a.m.—disappeared when All Stars
closed. Given that All Stars has closed, and is therefore no longer operating past
2:00 a.m., the case is moot because we can “no longer give [the plaintiffs]
meaningful relief.” Jews for Jesus v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth., 162 F.3d
627, 628 (11th Cir. 1998). Cf. City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 531
U.S. 278, 283–86 (2001) (dismissing case on mootness grounds when the business
suing the city ceased operations, and as a result the relief it sought could no longer
be granted).
Although the City’s voluntary decision to evenly apply the ordinance at
issue does not necessarily moot the case, dismissal is appropriate “in the absence
of some reasonable basis to believe that the policy will be reinstated if the suit is
terminated.” Doe v. Wooten, 747 F.3d 1317, 1322 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting
Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections, 382 F.3d 1276, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004)). Here,
no such reasonable basis exists. The City attempted to enforce the ordinance
*
The Honorable Eugene Siler Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
Case: 15-10686 Date Filed: 07/01/2016 Page: 3 of 4
against All Stars in 2004, but it was prevented from doing so by a state court order.
All Stars is no longer in business and the City has affirmatively represented that it
will now enforce the pre-4:00 a.m. closing times to all its bars and restaurants.
Taken together, these circumstances show that the city has a longstanding desire to
enforce the ordinance equally, and, since the closing of All Stars, it has the ability
to do so.
The plaintiffs argue that the state court order would allow any bar that opens
in the same location to stay open until 4:00 a.m., but this position lacks merit. Only
All Stars’ owner was a party to the case. And, while the state court found that
representations by the City’s former manager to the property owner created an
implied-in-fact contract allowing All Stars’ owner to serve alcohol until 4:00 a.m.,
any such representation applied by its terms only to existing businesses. Moreover,
on the record before the district court, All Stars cannot reasonably be expected to
reopen with a 4:00 a.m. last call. All Stars’ liquor license had not expired at the
time the district court rendered its decision, but it was in the process of being
transferred. The plaintiffs have presented no convincing argument that the
transferee would be able to serve alcohol outside the hours the ordinance permits.
We deny the parties’ motions to supplement the record on appeal because
the district court’s order allows the plaintiffs to file suit again if the City allows any
3
Case: 15-10686 Date Filed: 07/01/2016 Page: 4 of 4
businesses to remain open and serve alcohol after 2:00 a.m. We also deny the
City’s motion to strike.
AFFIRMED.
4