Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-00505/USCOURTS-alnd-5_13-cv-00505-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
The City of Huntsville
Defendant
Volcano 256
Plaintiff
Volcano Enterprises, Inc
Plaintiff
Daryl Williams
Plaintiff

Document Text:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

VOLCANO ENTERPRISES,

INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. CV-13-S-505-NE

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was commenced in the Circuit Court for Madison County,

Alabama, on February 14, 2013, and removed here on March 15, 2013. The 1

plaintiffs are Volcano Enterprises, Inc., doing business as “Volcano 256,” and its

majority stockholder, Daryl Williams. They seek judicial review of the denial of 2

their application for a liquor license by the Huntsville City Council by means of a

petition for common-law writ of certiorari. They also assert a claim for damages

under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The case now is before the court on defendant’s 3

motion for summary judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, briefs, and oral 4

 Doc. no. 1 (Notice of Removal). 1

Doc. no. 7 (Amended Complaint), ¶¶ 1–2. Williams owns a ninety-percent share of 2

Volcano 256. See doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 22. 

See doc. no. 7 (Amended Complaint), ¶¶ 26–34. 3

 See doc. no. 26 (Motion for Summary Judgment). 4

FILED

 2014 Sep-29 PM 03:18

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 32
arguments of counsel, the court concludes the motion should be granted. 

5

I. FACTS

Daryl Williams is anAfrican-American resident ofBirmingham, Alabama, who

owns and operates an adult lounge (“Club Volcano”) within that city. He leased 6

Summary judgment should be entered “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute 5

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a). The party requesting summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing

the court of the basis for its motion, and of identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions,

answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, that

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56(c)requires the nonmoving

party to go beyond the pleadings, and by its own affidavits, or by the depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, to designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine

issue for trial. See id. at 324. Any reasonable dispute or doubt as to a material fact, and all justifiable

inferences, are resolved in favor of the non-moving party. See Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d

1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993) (quotingUnited States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428,

1437 (11th Cir. 1991)). The materiality of a fact is determined by the substantive law at issue. See

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A “genuine” dispute is one in which a

reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Id. 

In making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all

reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.

The mere existence ofsome factual dispute will not defeat summaryjudgment

unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case. 

The relevant rules of substantive law dictate the materiality of a disputed fact. A

genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence

favoring the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.

Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v. City

of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)); see also United States v. Four Parcels of Real

Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1437 (11th Cir. 1991) (en banc). 

See doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 6, 27; doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council 6

Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 15. NOTE WELL: “ECF” is the acronym for “Electronic Case

Filing,” a system that allows parties to file and serve documents electronically. See Atterbury v.

Foulk, No. C-07-6256 MHP, 2009 WL 4723547, *6 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2009). Bluebook Rule

7.1.4 permits citations to the “page numbers generated by the ECF header.” Wilson v. Fullwood, 772

2

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 32
space located in a business plaza at 4320 University Drive in Huntsville (“the subject

property”) on February 1, 2011, with the intention of opening another adult lounge 7

to be named “Volcano 256.” Other tenants occupying spaces within the same

8

business plaza included a liquor store, an adult bookstore, and the “Cat and Mouse

Club” (which was owned by a Caucasian). 

9

A club named “The Silver Dollar Lounge” had occupied the subject property

for more than thirty years before Williams leased the same space. It opened for

10

business on some undisclosed date in the 1970s, and closed on December 31, 2010.

11

During its years of operation, the Silver Dollar Lounge served alcohol and featured

female dancers. Its owners were Caucasian. 

12 13

F. Supp. 2d 246, 257 n.5 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation R. B.

7.1.4, at 21 (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al., 19th ed. 2010)). Thus, unless stated otherwise, this

court will cite the original pagination in the parties’ pleadings. When the court cites to pagination

generated by the ECF header, it will, as here, precede the page number with the letters “ECF.” 

See doc. no. 21-1 (“LEASE AGREEMENT” between Danny Johnson and Volcano 7

Enterprises), at ECF 31. 

Doc. no. 21-1 (“Cityof Huntsville Alcoholic Beverage License Supplemental Application”),

8

at ECF 26. 

See doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 141; doc. no. 21-2 (LicenseReview Committee 9

Minutes), at ECF 22; doc. no. 21-6 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes), at ECF 5.

 Doc. no. 21-2 (License Review Committee Minutes), at ECF 13. 10

See doc. no. 21-1 (“City of Huntsville Alcoholic Beverage License Supplemental 11

Application”), at ECF 26; doc. no. 21-2 (License Review Committee Minutes), at ECF 13.

See doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 112; doc. no. 21-1 (“City of Huntsville 12

Alcoholic Beverage License Supplemental Application”), at ECF 27.

 Doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 134. 13

3

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 3 of 32
Williams leased the subject property with the intention of operating the “exact

same business as Silver Dollar did.” Thus, his August 15, 2012 application sought 14

the same classification of liquor license previously held by the owners of the Silver

Dollar: i.e., “Lounge Retail (With Entertainment).” 

15

A. The License Review Committee’s Decision 

Huntsville’s ordinances vest the members of a License Review Committeewith

the responsibility of assisting the City Council in reviewing and investigating liquor

license applications. 

There is created, for the purpose of assisting the city council in

reviewing and approving applicationsfor licenses and performing other

matters specifically assigned to the committee by this chapter, a

committee to be known asthe license review committee. The committee

shall assist the city council in the consideration and special investigation

of all applications for licensing under this chapter. The committee shall

be composed of the city clerk-treasurer or an administrative officer of

the clerk-treasurer’s office designated by the city clerk-treasurer; the

chief of police or an officer of the police department designated by the

Id. at 114. 14

See doc. no. 21-1 (“City of Huntsville Alcoholic Beverage License Supplemental 15

Application”), at ECF 29. See also, e.g., id. at ECF 26 (“City of Huntsville, Alabama Supplemental

Privilege License Application Approval for Alcoholic Beverage”), stating in the

“REMARKS/COMMENTS” portion at the bottom of the page: 

The applicant would like for the City of Huntsville to approve a Lounge

Retail Liquor with entertainment license at this location. This location held a 2010

license for this same classification under the name R G Entertainment Inc. #8692

d/b/a Silver Dollar. This establishment closed December 31, 2010. This same

applicant was denied this license 4/19/12 for being within 500 ft of a residential zone. 

4

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 4 of 32
chief of police; and the director of planning or an employee of the

planning department designated by the director of planning. 

HUNTSVILLE, ALA., ORDINANCE NO. 11-654, § 3-87(a) (2011). The factors to be 16

considered when reviewing an application were listed as follows: 

(a) In considering the application for a city license, whether by the

liquor license review committee or the city council on appeal, all

relevant factors may be considered, which includes, among others and

without limitation, the following:

(1) Compliance with this chapter and the state alcoholic

beverage control laws, which includes classification specific

requirements or qualifications for licensing;

(2) Compliance with other city ordinances, rules, and

regulations, which includes the city’s zoning laws and any

variances or special exceptions granted pursuant thereto;

(3) Suitability of the applicant and persons having

ownership, control, or management of or an interest in the

establishment to be licensed;

(4) Any required security plan and suitability of security

personnel;

(5) Location of the premises, which includes adjacent or

nearby uses;

(6) Information contained in the application, which

includes criminal history;

(7) Results of the investigation conducted in accordance

with section 3-86;

See also doc. no. 21-1, at ECF 14. 16

5

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 5 of 32
(8) Testimony presented at any hearings conducted on the

application, which includestestimony of the owners or occupants

of nearby property as well as the general public; and

(9) Impact upon the welfare, health, peace, temperance,

morals, and safety of the public.

(b) In an appeal to the city council, the city council may consider

the decision of the license review committee and any reasons given

therefor. 

(c) No applicant shall be deemed eligible for a license under this

chapter nor shall an application be approved without having first

obtained all required permits from the health department, and without

fully meeting applicable requirements of the technical codes of the city,

the fire prevention codes of the state and of the city, the zoning laws of

the city, and other applicable city laws which regulate the business or

the premises. 

Id., § 3-89. 

17

Sergeant Mark Roberts, who had represented the Chief of Police on the License

Review Committee for more than a decade, was present at the September 20, 2012

meeting when plaintiffs’ application was discussed. He had conducted the required 18

investigation into the application. The minutes record the following discussion: 19

The application for Volcano was read by Chairman Cole and

turned over to Sergeant Roberts for his comments. He stated this

application had come up for the third time. The first time it was denied

See also id. at ECF 14-15. 17

Doc. no. 28-2 (Roberts Deposition), at 12; doc. no. 21-1 (License Review Committee 18

Minutes), at ECF 79–85.

 Doc. no. 28-2 (Roberts Deposition), at 44, 54. 19

6

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 6 of 32
on 9-1-11 by the Fire Department. On 4-19-12 it was denied by the

Zoning Department, and on 8-15-12 it was submitted again. On this

date it was denied again and Sergeant Roberts stated that he would give

a history but Mr. Lucian Blankenship, attorney for the applicant, Mr.

Williams, stated Mr. Williams was not present at this time but was en[-]

route and was caught up in traffic. Whereupon, Chairman Cole

proceeded with the other business and came back to this application last

with Mr. Williams still not present.

. . . .

[Between the foregoing entry in the Committee’s minutes and the

following report by Sergeant Mark Roberts, two persons appeared

before the Committee and spoke in favor of Williams’s application, but

neither individual indicated that he lived (or worked) in the area near the

property. ] 20

Sergeant Roberts stated the application was denied regarding the

impact of the area and the history on the site activity at 4320A

University Drive. 

Sergeant Roberts further stated on March 25, 2011 Huntsville

Police found employees fromBirminghamdoing construction work and

not licensed, and they were bootlegging electricity. The police brought

in the landlord, and he was advised and agreed he would lock up

everything until it was all taken care of.

On 3-31-11 doors were open and Mr. Williams was inside and

still had no license, and the Inspection Department issued a Stop Work

Order.

On 4-26-11 the police get a call and find several workers inside

doing demolition, and these were employees again from Birmingham

Doc. no. 21-1 (License Review Committee Minutes), at ECF 80-81. The two individuals 20

who appeared were Mr. Wiley Nunn (who described himself as the “host of a tv show, [‘]

Showcase’, owner of a small business, and supporter of ‘Tools For Teachers’”) and Mr. Cedric

McDaniel (who described himself as having “a tv show called ‘Mixed Shows’, and . . . a DJ”).

7

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 7 of 32
with no license and permit. Two workers were arrested and pled guilty,

and Mr. Williams pled guilty to violation of the City Code. One worker

possessed a handgun and drugs and is on the run for 2 outstanding arrest

warrants pending failure to appear on charges of possession of

marijuana and drug paraphernalia.

On 5-2-11 the Inspection Department issued a second Stop-Work

Order which was ignored.

On 5-8-06 Mr. Williams was arrested for felony drug charges.

An impact study on what adult entertainment brings to a place

was done, and the police were able to do calls on full impact to this one

particular area. From calls to the police from12-21-08 to 10-21-10 in

the shopping center only which comprised a 22 month period, there were

87 incidents and 49 of them occurred at or were related to customers at

The Silver Dollar Lounge. 32 of those crimes were drug related. The

Silver Dollar Lounge was open at the time and this is 56% of the total

incidents. There were 529 service calls to the shopping center premises

when the club was open and 4,709 calls for service to the general area. 

From 10-21-08 to 8-21-12 which also comprises a 22 month period,

there were 39 incidents at the same location. Only 4 were drug related,

and the Silver Dollar Lounge was closed during this time frame. There

were 142 service calls to the shopping center premises when the club

was closed. In the general area, like apartments, there was 3,452. You

can see the impact adult entertainment brings to the residents and

shopping center involved. There was nothing else except all were

related to the adult club.

Mr. Blankenship stated Mr. Williams was arrested and charged

and found not guilty, and he can pull this information. He stated Mr.

Williams never had any other history [of] problems. He said Mr.

Williams had operated his establishment, Club 205, for 15 years and had

no history of any crime. The police precinct is in the area, and Mr.

Williams owns a number of businesses within the area. At one time it

was a high crime area until he came into the area. He stated he couldn’t

speak for the past of the community and the public, but Mr. Williams

8

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 8 of 32
keeps down crime by not having people hanging outside, and he has offduty police and a security firm and this keeps down loitering outside. 

He is preventive in keeping down crime. He spoke to police in

Birmingham also and can get facts from them. Mr. Williams doesn’t

spend money unless he’s concerned about this. The police monitor him

close and police are not concerned about him. From an operating

standpoint in regard to activity before, I understand you look strongly

if he will be a business opportunity for the community. The contractors

he hired he was not familiar with, and they did not get permits and were

caught in the club working without permits. He doesn’t know these

people.

Sergeant Roberts stated these workers stated they were working

for Mr. Williams. . . . 

Doc. no. 21-1 (License Review Committee Minutes), at ECF 80–84 (alterations

supplied). At the conclusion of discussion, each member of the Committee wrote

“Denied” next to his signature on the application form. 

21

B. The First City Council Hearing

Williams appealed the denial of his application to the Huntsville City

Council. The issue first came up for discussion during the meeting held on October

22

25, 2012. Council President Mark Russell first recognized Dennis Cole, Chairman 23

of the License Review Committee, who stated that

the applicant, Volcano Enterprises, Inc., had come before the Liquor

License Review Committee three times, noting that they had applied for

See id. at ECF 26. 21

 Doc. no. 21-1 (Notice of Appeal), at ECF 85. 22

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 3, 7, 12. 23

9

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 9 of 32
a lounge retail liquor license at 4320 University Drive, and that they had

been denied all three times. 

Mr. Cole stated that on the first denial, on September 1, 2011, the

Fire Department had recommended denial because of Fire Code

violations; that on April 19, 2012, seven months later, the City of

Huntsville Zoning Department had recommended denial based upon the

grandfather clause; and that on September 20, 2012, five months later,

the City of Huntsville Police Department had recommended denial,

based in part on lounge impact on the surrounding area.

Mr. Cole stated that he had a petition from University Place

Elementary School, from approximately 40 parents, asking the Council

to deny Volcano Enterprises’ appeal.

(Petition from parents of students attending University Place

Elementary School, submitted by Tanya Newsom, Mom, PTA Parent,

Leasing Specialist for Apartment Community.)

Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 12–13.

After Chairman Cole submitted the petition signed by parents of students

attending the University Place Elementary School, the Birmingham attorney for

plaintiff Williams (Don Blankenship)stated that the issues which caused the first two

denials of his client’s application “had been resolved,” and that his client had

received a “Certificate of Occupancy.” He argued that plaintiffs should “not be held 24

responsible for what had happened at [The Silver Dollar Lounge]” during the years

before Williams leased the subject property. He also questioned why, if the Silver 25

Id. at ECF 13. 24

Id. (alteration supplied). 25

10

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 10 of 32
Dollar Lounge had become a “nuisance,” the City had not sought to close it.

26

Blankenship also questioned whether it wasfair for the Police Department to attribute

the “incidents” they reported to the Silver Dollar Lounge, as opposed to the

“surrounding area,” which “was on a major arterial street.” Finally, Blankenship

27

stated that his client “had nothing in his background that would prevent him from

owning a club.” 

28

At the conclusion of Blankenship’s statements, Sergeant Roberts presented

substantially the same information he had reported to the License Review Committee,

but added a few considerations. For example, he pointed out that the University

29

Place Elementary School referenced in the petition presented to the Council by

Committee Chairman Cole was located “directly across the street” from the subject

property. He also noted that “approximately 1,000 apartments, completely

30

Id. 26

Id. 27

Id. at ECF 14–15. 28

See doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 15. 29

Id. Daryl Williams alleged during his deposition that the school is not “directly across the 30

street,” but “over a mile away” from the subject property. Doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at

200. According to this court’s search on the “Google Maps” website, however, both Sergeant

Roberts and Mr. Williams are incorrect. The school actually is 0.4 miles from Volcano 256 by

automobile. Even so, the exact distance is not as important as the fact that the school is “nearby

property” and, for that reason, the opinion of the parents of students who attended that elementary

school became a relevant factor for consideration bymembers of the CityCouncil. See HUNTSVILLE,

ALA., ORDINANCE NO. 11-654, §§S 3-89(a)(5), (a)(8). 

11

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 11 of 32
surround[] the location.” 

31

Roberts then described a series of violations of the city’s building codes that

had occurred after Williams leased the subject property. The first occurred on 32

March 25, 2011, when Roberts and another officer found workers performing

demolition work for Williams without a license. The Police Department issued a

33

“Stop Work Order,” and warned Williams that he was required to obtain proper

permits before performing construction work. Less than one week later, however, 34

police officers again found contractors performing construction work on the premises,

and issued a second Stop Work Order. On yet a third occasion, April 26, 2011,

35

police officers found workers violating the Stop Work Orders, although Williams

contends that he had hired the workers only to “clean up” the “mess” left by a

contractor. Roberts reported that the workers “were jailed” after the third incident,

36

and that Williams was later arrested “for operating without a license and a permit.”37

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 15 (alteration 31

supplied).

Id. 32

See id.; doc. no. 28-2 (Roberts Deposition), at 24. 33

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 15. 34

Id. 35

 Doc. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 74. 36

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 15. 37

12

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 12 of 32
Williams pled guilty to the charge of working without a permit. 

38

At one point during Sergeant Roberts’s description of the third building code

violation, Councilman Will Culver said that he “did not like the fact that they were

exposing Mr. Williams’[s] businessin a Council meeting, noting that he believed they

should stay on the major issues.” He explained that “he was more concerned about

39

the crime that had been committed in the area, [and] that he did not want to make this

a personal thing.” In response, Sergeant Roberts stated that “the character of a

40

person who owned a club that sold alcohol was part of the process of the liquor

license application.” See HUNTSVILLE, ALA.,ORDINANCE NO. 11-654, § 3-89(a)(3) 41

(directing the License Review Committee and Council to consider the “Suitability of

the applicant”). 

42

Roberts also presented an analysis of the impact of “adult entertainment” on

the area surrounding the subject property during the years that the Silver Dollar

Lounge had been in operation. According to police data, during the final twenty- 43

Id. Williams testified that he pled guilty to this charge because all he would “have to do 38

is pay a fine.” Doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 96.

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 15 (alteration 39

supplied).

Id. at 16 (alteration supplied). 40

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 16. 41

 Doc. no. 21-1, at ECF 15. 42

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 16–17. 43

13

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 13 of 32
two months the lounge was open for business, 49 of 87 “incidents” at the business

plaza (i.e., 56%) were “related to customers at the Silver Dollar Lounge,” and 32 44

were drug-related (i.e., 37% of 87 incidents, or 65% of 49 incidents). In contrast,

45

during the twenty-two month period following the Silver Dollar’s closure, the number

of police “calls for service” in the business plaza had plunged 73% from the number

of calls made during the final twenty-two months of the Lounge’s operations: i.e.,

from 529 to 142 calls.

46

Several persons present at the Council meeting spoke highly of Williams’s

character, challenged Roberts’s findings, and asked the Council to grant the license.

47

Those persons included Wiley Nunn, a friend of Williams who did not indicate

whether he lived or worked in Huntsville; Shyheim Thompson, from Birmingham;

48

and, Pastor T.C. Johnson, from Huntsville. On the other hand, Reverend Stan 49

Mullins, pastor of Woodland Hill BaptistChurch, “speaking on behalf of his church,”

Id. at 17. 44

Id. at 16. 45

Id. 46

 Doc. no. 21-3 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 16–32 of 32), at ECF 17–20. 47

See supra note 20. 48

Id. Pastor Johnson did not state the name or location of his church. His comments 49

primarily concerned the situation he believed the Council would create by denying the application,

where “some persons could do some things in the city and others could not” (i.e., referring to some

persons being allowed to sell alcohol while others were not). Id. at ECF 17. He then said that “he

was not saying that he was for this, that he was just dealing with a principle issue.” Id. (emphasis

supplied).

14

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 14 of 32
asked the Council to deny the application, citing police efforts to reduce crime in the

area. Mullins indicated that his church “was right around the corner from this 50

location.”51

Councilman Will Culver — who, like Williams, is an African-American, and

who represented the district in which the subject property is located — expressed

52

a desire to consult residents within his district before voting on the issue. The

53

Council then continued the hearing until its December 6, 2012 meeting. Williams did

not object. 

54

C. The Second City Council Hearing

The Council once again heard from Sergeant Mark Roberts during the second

appeal hearing. He presented new statistics on the impact of adult entertainment 55

businesses within the city, and noted that, after two adult entertainment lounges on 56

South Memorial Parkway had ceased operations, the number of police “incidents” in

 Doc. no. 21-2 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1–15 of 32), at ECF 18. 50

Id. 51

Id. at ECF 23. 52

Id. at ECF 24; doc. no. 21-3 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 16–32 of 32), at ECF 53

3.

 Doc. no. 21-3 (Oct. 25, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 16–32 of 32), at ECF 3. 54

 Doc. no. 21-3 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 1-9 of 38), at ECF 37. 55

Id. 56

15

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 15 of 32
the vicinity of each closed club had decreased by 44% and 30%, respectively. 

57

A number of persons spoke for or against the application. Reverend Stan

Mullins, the pastor of the Woodland Hill Baptist Church, again argued for denial,

saying that Williams did not “start off on the right foot” when remodeling the subject

property. Doug Hale, the owner of 400 apartments near the subject property (and 58

the former owner of an additional 460 apartment units located “right behind” the

subject property) “strongly encourage[d]” the Council to deny the application. The 59

parent of a University Place Elementary School student expressed concern over the

fact that the club would be open “during after-school activities, such as PTA

meetings.” She also referred to Volcano 256 as “the strip club.” Gaynell T. Beam

60 61

argued against the licensing of what she also called “a strip joint.” And, Paul Long

62

complained that some persons who attended Councilman Culver’s “Town Hall

meeting” opposed the club because they “did not want any naked girls.” 

63

At the close of the public comments portion of the hearing, City Attorney Peter

Id. at ECF 37–38. 57

 Doc. no. 21-5 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 15-19 of 38), at ECF 1. 58

Id. at ECF 3 (alteration supplied). 59

Id. at ECF 5. 60

Id. 61

 Doc. no 21-4 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 10-14 of 38), at ECF 5. 62

 Doc. no. 21-5 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 15-19 of 38), at ECF 4. 63

16

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 16 of 32
Joffrion remarked that the statements by some speakers about the Silver Dollar

Lounge operating as a “topless” or “strip club” were “not accurate,” and he

emphasized that the City of Huntsville did not permit such clubs. 

64

Council President Mark Russell then made a motion “to uphold the decision

oftheLiquor License Review Committee denying a retail liquorlounge entertainment

license to Volcano Enterprises, Inc., dba Volcano 2[5]6,” and Councilman Will

65

Culver seconded the motion. 

66

During discussion on the motion, Councilman Bill Kling stated that he had

attended numerous neighborhood association meetings, and that Williams’s

application “seemed to be the hot-button issue” during the meeting of the University

Park/McThornmor Acres Neighborhood Association. He observed that the persons

67

within that neighborhood were most concerned about 

noise, cut-through traffic, and crime. He stated that after everyone had

spoken, he had asked to get some feedback from [the persons in

attendance]. He stated that he had noticed in looking around the

audience that it was certainly racially mixed. He stated that he had

asked for the consensus, everyone that was in favor and everyone that

was opposed, and that the final result was that 34 persons who were in

attendance at that meeting were opposed to the license being granted. 

Doc. no. 21-6 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 20-34 of 38), at ECF 2 (emphasis and 64

alteration supplied).

Id. (alteration supplied). 65

Id. 66

Id. at ECF 3. 67

17

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 17 of 32
He stated that he believed there were one or two that had not raised their

hands but that no one was in favor of it. 

68

Councilman Culver reported that a majority of the persons who attended his

Town Hall meeting were opposed to granting plaintiffs a liquor license (i.e., 55

opposed to 42 in favor). He concluded by expressing regret that Daryl Williams had

69

expended a lot of money and his liquor license had been denied by the

Liquor Review Committee. He stated that, however, without regard to

all of that, he represented the interests of the District and that he could

not do anything differently with this particular situation than he had

done with any of the aforementioned situations [in which applications

had been denied]. 

70

Councilman Richard Showers — who, like both Williams and Councilman

Culver, is an African-American — asked the Chairman of the License Review

Committee whether it was true that, earlier that same day, the Committee had

approved an application submitted by the “Cat and Mouse Club.” Dennis Cole 71

confirmed that the Committee had done so, but said that the Cat and Mouse Club was

owned by a corporation which had only one shareholder, and that there had been a

recent change in the identity of that shareholder. He then explained that, 

when ownership changed, orshareholders changed, all [the club owner]

Id. (emphasis and alteration supplied). 68

Id. at ECF 4. 69

Doc. no. 21-6 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 20-34 of 38), at ECF 5 (alteration 70

supplied). 

 Id. 71

18

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 18 of 32
had to do was supply the State and the City with the new owner’s

information. He continued that the [Cat and Mouse Club] was already

licensed, there was not a new license being granted, that it was just the

approval of a [new] shareholder. 

72

Councilman Showersthen asked City Attorney Peter Joffrion whether the City

would be exposed to liability, if the Council denied plaintiffs’ appeal. Mr. Joffrion 73

responded that, “based upon all that he had heard concerning this matter, his answer

would be no.” He added that “there had been more than enough evidence upon 74

which the Council could base its decision to deny the license, if that was what the

Council chose to do.” 

75

Finally, Councilman Bill Kling asked Peter Joffrion whether the City of

Huntsville 

had ever had this type of strip-club-type facility come up for

consideration before the City Council and the Council had approved,

denied, or taken any action, or if this would be the first time for this

issue. 

Mr. Joffrion [reiterated substantially the same thing he had said

at the conclusion of the public comments, and] stated that the City had

never approved a license for a strip club, [and] that nudity was not

permitted under City ordinances. 

President Russell [then] called for the vote on his motion to

Id. (alterations supplied). 72

Id. 73

Id. 74

Id. 75

19

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 19 of 32
uphold the decision of the Liquor License Review Committee in this

matter, and it was unanimously approved by the Council. 

76

II. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Where, as here, “there is no statutory right of direct appeal from a local

government’s decision to deny an application for a liquor license, the only proper

method of judicial review is by the common-law writ of certiorari.” Phase II, LLC

v. City of Huntsville, 952 So. 2d 1115, 1120 n.3 (Ala. 2006) (citing Sanders v. City

of Dothan, 642 So. 2d 437, 440 (Ala. 1994)). The scope of review is limited to the

record before this court, and the only issue to be determined is whether to affirm or

quash the decision of the City Council. As the Alabama Supreme Court observed in

Jefferson County v. Berkshire Development Corp., 168 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1964), “[t]he

appropriate office of the writ is to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the

record. The trial is not de novo, but on the record, and the only matter to be

determined isthe quashing, or affirmation, ofthe proceedings brought up for review.”

Id. at 16 (alteration supplied). 

Further, when “reviewing a municipal council’s exercise of its legislative

discretion to approve or disapprove the issuance of a restaurant liquor license, this

Court must apply an ‘arbitrary-and-capricious’ standard.” Ex Parte Trussville City

Doc. no. 21-6 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 20-34 of 38), at ECF 5–6 (alterations 76

supplied). 

20

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 20 of 32
Council, 795 So. 2d 725, 727 (Ala. 2001). 

The Alabama Supreme Court addressed a factually similar case in 2006. In

Phase II, LLC, supra, a plaintiff seeking a liquor license argued that complaints from

communitymembers “and statistics provided by the Huntsville Police Department did

not provide a reasonable justification for the city council to deny the liquor license.” 

952 So. 2d at 1120. The following portions of the Court’s opinion are instructive:

The City, on the other hand, argues that the city council’s denial

of the liquor license was not arbitrary and capricious but was justified

by ample evidence of the potential negative impact of the liquor license

on the area in which the nightclub was to be located. See Ex parte

Trussville City Council, 795 So. 2d at 727 (stating that a presumed

negative impact on the surrounding area issufficient to support a finding

that a city council did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a

liquor license). At the hearing before the city council, Wyndham Park

residents, their families, and members of the staff of Wyndham Park

testified that the proposed nightclub would result in increased traffic,

compromised public safety, and limits on the residents’ freedom of

movement. A representative of the VTUP [i.e., “Victory Tabernacle

United Pentecostal”] Church expressed concern over the effect of the

proposed nightclub on the church’s evening weekend services, the

amount of increased traffic in the area, and the risk of drunk-driving

incidents. The Huntsville Police Department also presented at the

hearing statistics regarding calls of assistance from lounges with a

similar capacity, based on “shots fired.”

This evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that

the city council had not acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying

Phase II’s application for a liquor license. The city council properly

considered the detrimental effects of increased traffic on the area of the

proposed nightclub; the impact of the proposed nightclub on public

safety; and the general welfare of area residents. The Huntsville Police

21

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 21 of 32
Department testified that a liquorlounge would have a detrimental effect

on police manpower, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. The

police department also testified that police calls from similar lounges

typically occur after 2 a.m. and include complaints of loitering, fighting,

littering, and gunfire. These police concerns, coupled with the testimony

of both Wyndham Park residents and a representative of the VTUP

Church, created more than reasonable justification for the city council’s

denial of the liquor-license application. Therefore, in light of these

safety and traffic concerns, we conclude that the city council did not

arbitrarily and capriciously deny Phase II’s liquor-license application.

Phase II, LLC, 952 So. 2d at 1120–21 (alteration and emphasis supplied). 

This court also finds that the concerns of community residents, coupled with

the statistics presented by Sergeant Mark Roberts, “created more than reasonable

justification for the city council’s denial of the liquor-license application.” Id. at

1121. “Alabama municipalities are accorded broad discretion when reviewing a

liquor-license application.” Id. (citing Ex parte Trussville City Council, 795 So. 2d

at 728). 

Plaintiffs’ contention that some members of the Council may have based their

decision on the misconception that Volcano 256 was a “strip club” is speculative. 

Even assuming for the sake of discussion that Councilman Kling’s comment

immediately prior to the vote is evidence of “confusion and error” on his part, it 77

certainly is not sufficient to carry plaintiffs’ burden of proof. Absent more

 Doc. no. 29 (Response to Motion for Summary Judgment), at 17. 77

22

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 22 of 32
compelling evidence, the court cannot find that, as a matter of law, the Council’s

decision was arbitrary and capricious. 

III. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIM

Plaintiffs allege that they were “subject[ed] to different and less favorable

treatment in obtaining permits and licenses . . . than similarly situated White business

owners.” Their claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 merge, as “section 1981 78

can provide no broader remedy against a state actor than section 1983.” Busby v. City

of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 771–72 n.6 (11th Cir. 1991). 

A municipalitymay be held accountable under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 for

the conduct of a group of governmental actors only when plaintiffs show that

execution of an official “policy” or “custom” effectively was the cause of the injury

complained of. Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658,

694 (1978). 

79

Plaintiffs base their race discrimination claim, in part, on the actions of

Sergeant Roberts. Daryl Williams admitted in his deposition, however, that 80

 Doc. no. 7 (Amended Complaint), ¶ 34 (alteration supplied). 78

The term policy has been defined as “a decision that is officially adopted by the 79

municipality, or created by an official of such rank that he or she could be said to be acting on behalf

of the municipality.” Sewell v. Town Lake of Hamilton, 117 F.3d 488, 489 (11th Cir. 1997). The

term custom, on the other hand, is defined as “a practice that is so settled and permanent that it takes

on the force of law.” Id. (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91).

 Doc. no. 7 (Amended Complaint), ¶¶ 15–17. 80

23

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 23 of 32
Sergeant Roberts was not acting in accordance with a policy or custom of the City.

Q: Do you believe that [Roberts] was acting in accordance with any

existing customs of the City of Huntsville in [his actions]?

A: No. I think he was — I think he had a mission to try to sabotage

me.

Q: Are you aware of any past practices of the City of Huntsville that

he might have been acting in accordance with by doing what you

described?

A: No. . . . . 

81

Williams also concedes that the members of the City’s License Review Committee

did not discriminate against him. 

Q: With respect to your belief that you were discriminated against,

do you believe that you were discriminated against by the liquor

license review committee?

A: No. 

82

Accordingly, the only governmental action for which the City might be held liable is

the Council’s unanimous vote sustaining the License Review Committee’s denial of

plaintiffs’ application. 

The Supreme Court observed in Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986),

that “a municipality may be liable under 1983 for a single decision by its properly

 Doc. no. 28-2 (Williams Deposition), at 171–73 (alterations supplied). 81

Id. at 135. 82

24

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 24 of 32
constituted legislative body — whether or not that body had taken similar action in

the past or intended to do so in the future — because even a single decision by such

a body unquestionably constitutes an act of official government policy.” Id. at 480

(citing Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247 (1981), and Owen v. City of

Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980)). Even so, plaintiffs still must show that the City

Council’s decision was motivated by a racially-discriminatory animus. See Jackson

v. BellSouth Telecommunications, 372 F.3d 1250, 1270 (11th Cir. 2004).

In order to state a prima facie case of race discrimination under either § 1981

or § 1983, plaintiffs must establish: (1) that plaintiff Daryl Williams is a member of

a racial minority; (2) that the City Council intended to discriminate against himon the

basis of his race; and (3) “that the discrimination concerned one or more of the

activities enumerated in the statute.” Id. It is undisputed that Williams is a member

of a racial minority, and that plaintiffs have alleged discrimination concerning an

activity enumerated in § 1981: i.e., the right to contract. Thus, the “issue central

83

to resolution of [plaintiffs’ claims] . . . is whether the plaintiffs have alleged facts

sufficient to support the second prong — that the . . . defendants engaged in

intentional racial discrimination.” Id. (alterationssupplied) (citing General Building

Contractors Association,Inc. v.Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 391 (1982)(holding that

See doc. no. 7 (Amended Complaint), ¶ 31 (citing language from 42 U.S.C. § 1981). 83

25

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 25 of 32
claims based upon § 1981 “can only be violated by purposeful discrimination”)

(emphasis supplied)). 

Plaintiffs allege that the City engaged in intentional racial discrimination when

the Council subjected Daryl Williams to “different and lessfavorable treatment in the

obtaining of permits and licenses . . . than similarly situated White business

owners.” As the Eleventh Circuit held in Jackson v. BellSouth, however: 

84

When comparing similarly situated individuals to raise an inference of

discriminatory motivation, the individuals must be similarly situated in

all relevant respects besides race, Jones v. Bessemer Carraway Medical

Center, 137 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir. 1998) (involving Title VII

claim), since “[d]ifferent treatment of dissimilarly situated persons does

not violate” civil rights laws. E & T Realty v. Strickland, 830 F.2d

1107, 1109 (11th Cir. 1987) (addressing equal protection claim).

372 F.3d at 1273–74 (alteration and emphasis in original). 

Plaintiffs have pointed to the following individuals whom they believe were

similarly situated, but were treated more favorably: the Caucasian husband and wife

who formerly owned the Silver Dollar Lounge (“the couple”); and, the Caucasian

owner of the Cat and Mouse Club. The question is whether these individuals are 85

“similarly situated in all relevant respects besides race.” Id. 

Plaintiffs contend that the City treated Williams’s application for a liquor

 Doc. no. 7 (Amended Complaint), at ¶ 34. 84

 Doc. no. 29 (Response to Motion for Summary Judgment), at 16, 18. 85

26

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 26 of 32
license differently from the couple’s original application for a license in the 1970s,

and subsequent renewals of that license. The renewals are not relevant, however. 86

Renewal of a liquor license does not require an application; it requires only that the

owner pay a fee. See HUNTSVILLE, ALA., ORDINANCE NO. 12-365, § 16-45 (2012). 

Plaintiffs suggest that not suspending the couple’s license when it was up for renewal

is somehow tantamount to granting a liquor license, but the suspension process is

inherently different from the application process. Compare HUNTSVILLE, ALA.,

ORDINANCE NO. 11-654, § 3-91 (permitting the License Review Committee to

suspend a license if the owner violates an ordinance or law, or if the owner conducts

business “in a manner prejudicial to the welfare . . . of the public.”) with id. at § 3-81

(listing nine factors, “among others and without limitation,” the License Review

Committee should consider in granting applications). The City’s treatment of the

couple’s license renewals, therefore, is not relevant to the plaintiffs’ § 1981 claim. 

The City’s treatment of the couple’s original liquor license application in the

decade of the 1970s is arguably relevant. Several factors point to the couple and

Williams being similarly situated in that respect. First, the premises are the same.87

Second, the type of license sought, “Lounge Retail (With Entertainment),” is the

Id. 86

 Doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 112. 87

27

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 27 of 32
same. Third, the business that was conducted at the Silver Dollar Lounge, and the

88

business that would have been conducted at Volcano 256, if its application had been

granted, is the same (an adult lounge with female dancers). 

89

Nevertheless, the City argues that the couple and Williams are not similarly

situated because the couple applied for their license “approximately thirty years

ago.” They contend that “[t]ime alone is sufficient to establish different

90

circumstances.” The City failed to provide support for its argument, however, and

91

this court was unable to find binding authority on the issue in the decisions of either

Alabama courts or the Eleventh Circuit. Even so, a recent case decided by the United

States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is persuasive. 

In Snyder v. Gaudet, 756 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2014), the City of Waltham,

Massachusetts, issued a citation to a landowner for violation of a city land-use

See doc. no. 21-1 (“City of Huntsville Alcoholic Beverage License Supplemental 88

Application”), at ECF 29. See also, e.g., id. at ECF 26 (“City of Huntsville, Alabama Supplemental

Privilege License Application Approval for Alcoholic Beverage”), stating in the

“REMARKS/COMMENTS” portion at the bottom of the page: 

The applicant would like for the City of Huntsville to approve a Lounge

Retail Liquor with entertainment license at this location. This location held a 2010

license for this same classification under the name R G Entertainment Inc. #8692

d/b/a Silver Dollar.

 Doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 114. 89

 Doc. no. 27 (Summary Judgment Brief), at 25. 90

Id. (alteration supplied). 91

28

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 28 of 32
ordinance. Id. The landowner, pursuant to a § 1981 claim against the city, pointed

to the previous owner of the property as a “similarly situated, but differently treated,

comparator.” Id. at 34. The court held that “the most reliable comparisons are likely

to be from roughly the same time frame, particularly in the land-use context, where

differential treatment following a time lag . . . may indicate a change in policy rather

than an intent to discriminate.” Id. at 35 (citing Cordi-Allen v. Conlon, 494 F.3d 245,

253 (1st Cir. 2007)) (emphasis supplied, internal quotation marks omitted, alteration

in original). 

Here, the supposed similarly-situated comparators applied for their liquor

license some thirty or more years ago, creating a temporal difference between

applications that is substantially greater than the thirteen-year difference addressed

in Snyder. During the intervening decades, numerousfactors affecting the acceptance

and denial of liquor license applications undoubtedly have changed — including,

among other considerations, the makeup of the city council, city policies, law

enforcement strategies, crime statistics, zoning ordinances, licensing ordinances,

communities, neighborhoods, and the application process itself. In light of such

inevitable differences, it defies logic to assert that liquor license applicantsseparated

by more than thirty years are similarly situated in all relevantrespects. See Bellsouth,

372 F.3d at 1273. Accordingly, the court finds that the owners of the Silver Dollar

29

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 29 of 32
Lounge and Daryl Williams are not “similarly situated in all relevant respects.” Id.

The owner of the Cat and Mouse Club is not a suitable comparator, either. 

First, that Club’s sole shareholder did not apply for the same type of liquor license. 

Whereas plaintiffs applied for a license that included “entertainment,” the Cat and

Mouse Club did not. Moreover, the Cat and Mouse Club’s owner was not applying

92

for a new license, but was merely seeking approval from the City as a new

shareholder. As the Chairman of the License Review Committee explained during

93

the Council’s second hearing, the process for approving a new shareholder is not

similar to the process for approving new applications for a liquor license, as the

former is limited to an investigation only of the applicant, whereas investigations

conducted during the process of approving new applications are far more

comprehensive. Compare HUNTSVILLE, ALA., ORDINANCE NO. 11-654, § 3-53 with

id., § 3-81. For those reasons, the owner of the Cat and Mouse Club and Daryl

Williams are not “similarly situated in all relevant respects.” Bellsouth, 372 F.3d at

1273. 

Plaintiffs have thus failed to identify any non-minority liquorlicense applicants

who were similarly situated to Williams. The City, however, has identified similarly

 Doc. no. 28-3 (Williams Deposition), at 142. 92

 Doc. no. 21-6 (Dec. 6, 2012 Council Minutes: pages 20-34 of 38), at ECF 5. 93

30

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 30 of 32
situated Caucasian applicants who were treated the same as Williams: that is, their

94

applications were denied for reasons similar to those raised by the License Review

Committee and by the Council in this case. The Caucasian applicants identified by 95

the City were denied a liquor license with “entertainment,” in the form of dancing,

because community members objected to the license. “This undercuts any

96

suggestion that race was a motivating factor for the defendant’s actions.” Id. at 1274. 

Thus, plaintiffs have failed to raise a prima facie presumption of intentional

discrimination on the part of the City. 

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

In accordance with the foregoing, the City of Huntsville’s motion for summary

judgment is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that all claims asserted in the plaintiffs’

amended complaint be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice. Costs

are taxed to plaintiffs. The Clerk is directed to close this file. 

 Doc. no. 28-2 (Roberts Deposition), at 93. 94

Id. 95

Id. The City also points to anothersupposed similarly situated applicant, but that applicant 96

was applying for a liquor license for a music venue, not an adult lounge with dancing. Id. That

applicant therefore is not similarly situated to Williams.

31

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 31 of 32
DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2014. 

______________________________

United States District Judge

32

Case 5:13-cv-00505-CLS Document 34 Filed 09/29/14 Page 32 of 32