Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the 

Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the 

Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound 

volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 17-AA-467

1215 CT, LLC t/a ROSEBAR LOUNGE, PETITIONER,

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC

BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD, RESPONDENT. 

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the District of Columbia 

Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

(16-251-00125)

(Submitted October 18, 2018 Decided August 8, 2019)

Paul J. Kiernan and Kristina A. Crooks were on the brief for petitioner.

Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Loren L. 

AliKhan, Solicitor General, Stacy L. Anderson, Acting Deputy Solicitor General at 

the time the brief was filed, and Richard S. Love, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, were on the brief for respondent.

Before THOMPSON and MCLEESE, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior 

Judge.

THOMPSON, Associate Judge: Petitioner 1215 CT, LLC t/a Rosebar Lounge 

(“Rosebar”) seeks review of an April 26, 2017, decision and order of the District of 

Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (“the Board”) that imposed a $4,000 

fine and a seven-day suspension of Rosebar’s liquor license for a violation of D.C. 
2

Code § 25-823(a)(6) (2012 Repl. And 2019 Supp.).

1 Specifically, the Board found 

that on May 1, 2016, Rosebar “violated the terms of its security plan related to the 

use of force . . . .” 

Rosebar acknowledges for purposes of its petition that the Board’s factual 

findings are adequately supported by the record, but argues that the Board 

incorrectly applied § 25-823 when it found that a single violation of Rosebar’s 

security plan (the “Security Plan”) on file with the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation 

Administration (“ABRA”) constituted a violation of § 25-823(a)(6). For the 

reasons that follow, we affirm the Board’s decision. 

I.

Rosebar operates at 1215 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., and holds a Class CT 

License. On August 8, 2013, it submitted to ABRA its Security Plan, which 

describes strategies to be used to deal with uncooperative patrons and altercations 

that may arise between patrons. In pertinent part, Rosebar’s Security Plan provides 

that:

 

1

 The Board stayed the suspension pending resolution of the petition for 

review. 
3

Staff cannot legally use force against a person unless in 

self-defense or defense of others from imminent harm

. . . . At our venue staff may not use restraints or control 

holds; . . . tackling; . . . piling on top; . . . [or] pain 

compliance holds. 

. . . 

Escorting a patron out of a venue involves the use of 

professional verbal commands and a polite explanation of 

why they are being asked to leave[.]

The staff member should warn the guest that they must 

leave the premises immediately or be subject to arrest by 

the police. If the ejected patron attacks anyone, 

reasonable force can be used in self-defense. 

. . .

There may come times when deviation may be necessary 

to ensure the safety of our patrons and staff. Your 

supervisors will inform you of such cases if necessary. 

The Board found that during an incident on May 1, 2016 (the “May 2016 

incident”), Rosebar violated the provisions of its Security Plan related to the use of 

force and the ejection of patrons. The incident, which was captured on video 

footage reviewed by the Board, involved patron Zunnobia Hakir and Rosebar 

security guard Bobby Noupa. The Board found that the first use of force occurred 

after Mr. Noupa asked Ms. Hakir to leave a section of the establishment in the 

wake of complaints that she had caused trouble at a table. After Ms. Hakir leaned 
4

down to retrieve an item from her anklet pouch and then stood back up, Mr. Noupa 

pushed Ms. Hakir away from him. Mr. Noupa testified before the Board that he 

did not know what Ms. Hakir had in her hand and believed that she was attacking 

him, and in response, he “turned her around and decided to escort her out of the 

establishment.” The Board found that Mr. Noupa did that by “wrap[ping] up [Ms. 

Hakir’s] arms from behind by sticking his arms under her armpits” and then 

“walk[ed] her out of the establishment while maintaining the hold from behind.”

The Board found that Ms. Hakir “did not have a weapon in her hands” and 

concluded that Mr. Noupa could not reasonably have feared for his safety and that 

his use of force was unjustified.

The Board found that the second use of force occurred when Mr. Noupa, 

with Ms. Hakir in tow, approached the staircase leading to the establishment’s 

main entrance. Mr. Noupa proceeded to pull Ms. Hakir down the stairs by her 

arms, so that she either was dragged or fell to the landing in the middle of the 

divided staircase. The Board found that Mr. Noupa’s conduct was 

“disproportionate, excessive, and unreasonable,” could not “qualify as selfdefense,” and violated the terms of the Security Plan regarding the use of force. 
5

Shortly after the May 2016 incident, John Suero, a supervisory investigator 

with ABRA, went to Rosebar and interviewed managers there. Investigator Suero 

testified that Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (“ABC”) Manager Franco 

McGarrit and head of security Adrian Mack told him that they saw Ms. Hakir 

being removed from Rosebar. Mr. Mack also acknowledged that Rosebar had a 

policy that was “part of the security plan” that required security staff to request 

assistance from someone else or management in the event that a patron needs to be 

ejected. Mr. Mack told Investigator Suero that “no one had [called him about the 

May 1, 2016, incident].” 

Having noted that § 25-823(c) requires an establishment to comply with its 

security plan at “all times that [the licensee] is in operation” and provides that “[a] 

single violation of a . . . security plan . . . shall be sufficient to prove a violation 

. . . [,]” the Board sustained the charge that Rosebar violated §25-823(a)(6). 

Rosebar now asserts that the Board’s interpretation of § 25-823(c) with 

respect to a single violation is “completely unworkable,” is “incongruent with the 

legislative history,” “leads to unreasonable results,” “undermines the public-safety 

goals” of the District of Columbia alcoholic beverage control law, and cannot be 

squared with this court’s decision in 1900 M Rest. Ass’ns v. District of Columbia 
6

Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd. (“Rumors”), 56 A.3d 486 (D.C. 2012). Rosebar 

contends that it is entitled to reversal of the Board’s order because the Board did 

not find that Rosebar engaged in a “method of operation that encouraged 

deviations from its security plan.” 

II.

The scope of our review of Board decisions is well-established. “Under the 

general limited review that we undertake of any agency decision, we must affirm 

unless we conclude that the agency’s ruling was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Panutat, LLC v. District of 

Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 75 A.3d 269, 272 (D.C. 2013) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). “[W]here questions of law are concerned, we review 

agency’s rulings de novo because we are presumed to have the greater expertise 

when the agency’s decision rests on a question of law, and we therefore remain the 

final authority on issues of statutory construction.” Recio v. District of Columbia

Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 75 A.3d 134, 141 (D.C. 2013) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). That said, “[w]e accord considerable deference to the Board’s 

interpretation of statutes it is charged with administering, and we will uphold the 

Board’s interpretation of Title 25 and legislative enactments affecting it as long as 
7

the interpretation is reasonable and not plainly wrong or inconsistent with the 

legislative purpose.” 800 Water St., Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic 

Beverage Control Bd., 992 A.2d 1272, 1274 (D.C. 2010) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

“[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and 

means in a statute what it says there.” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 

253-54 (1992). Accordingly, “[t]he primary and general rule of statutory 

construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he 

has used.” Varela v. Hi-Lo Powered Stirrups, Inc., 424 A.2d 61, 64-65 (D.C. 

1980) (en banc) (quoting United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95, 102-03 

(1897)). “[I]n examining the statutory language, it is axiomatic that the words of 

the statute should be construed according to their ordinary sense and with the 

meaning commonly attributed to them.” Peoples Drug Stores, Inc. v. District of 

Columbia, 470 A.2d 751, 753 (D.C. 1983) (en banc) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). However, “there is wisely no rule of law forbidding resort to explanatory 

legislative history no matter how clear the words may appear on superficial 

examination.” Harrison v. N. Tr. Co., 317 U.S. 476, 479 (1943) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). Thus, “even where the words of a statute have a superficial 

clarity,” Peoples Drug Stores, 470 A.2d at 754 (internal quotation marks omitted),
8

“we may turn to legislative history to ensure that our interpretation is consistent 

with legislative intent[,]” Aboye v. United States, 121 A.3d 1245, 1249 (D.C. 2015) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

III.

This court has not interpreted § 25-823 since the Council of the District of 

Columbia (the “Council”) amended it in 2015 to designate the existing text as 

subsection (a) and to add subsections (b) and (c). See D.C. Law 20-270, § 2(f)(2), 

62 D.C. Reg. 1866, 1871-72 (Feb. 13, 2015). However, in our 2012 opinion in 

Rumors, we construed the provision that was redesignated in 2015 as § 25-

823(a)(2) (authorizing the Board to impose a fine or license suspension or 

revocation if “[t]he licensee allows the licensed establishment to be used for any 

unlawful or disorderly purpose”). We concluded that “the relevant inquiry for this 

court to consider in reviewing the ABC Board’s conclusion that a licensee allowed 

its establishment to be used for an unlawful or disorderly purpose is whether there 

is substantial evidence of a course of conduct, continued over time, that reflects the 

licensee’s adoption of a pattern or regular method of operation that encouraged, 

caused, or contributed to the unlawful or disorderly conduct at issue.” Rumors, 56 

A.3d at 493. We similarly construed the provision that was redesignated in 2015 
9

as 25-823(a)(6) (authorizing the Board to impose a fine or license suspension or 

revocation if “[t]he licensee fails to follow its . . . security plan”). Id. at 495. We

interpreted that provision, too, to “require[] evidence of a continuous course of 

conduct” to prove that a licensee failed to follow its security plan. Id. We held 

that the Board “improperly concluded that [Rumors] failed to follow its security 

plan,” id. at 496, reasoning as follows:

The Board’s findings reflect three violations of the 

security plan: Polley’s failure to obtain a manager when 

the Saltzman brothers failed to follow his commands; 

Polley’s failure to instead eject the woman who was 

acting aggressively towards the brothers; and, security 

staff member McGrabbin’s lack of familiarity with the 

security plan. However, each of these alleged violations 

of the security plan is distinct and unrelated as they differ 

in nature and quality from one another. Standing alone, 

these three violations of the security plan fail to evidence 

a pattern of violations establishing petitioner’s adoption 

of a pattern or regular method of operation that 

encouraged deviations from the establishment’s security 

plan. Evidence of isolated violations of the security plan 

is insufficient to establish petitioner’s adoption of a 

continuous course of conduct and therefore cannot 

support a finding that petitioner failed to follow its 

security plan under § 25-823(6). 

Id. at 495-96 (emphasis added).
10

The Council amended § 25-823 in 2015 “to clarify and codify the current 

state of the law in light of the Rumors decision . . . .” Committee on Business, 

Consumer, and Regulatory Affairs, D.C. Council, Report on Bill 20-902 at 2 (Nov. 

17, 2014) (“Committee Report” or the “Report”). The Council added § 25-823(b),

which provides that “[a] single incident of assault, sexual assault, or violence shall 

be sufficient to prove a violation of subsection (a)(2) of this section; provided, that 

the licensee has engaged in a method of operation that is conducive to unlawful or 

disorderly conduct.” See D.C. Law 20-270, § 2(f)(2), 62 D.C. Reg. at 1872. The 

Council also added § 25-823(c), the provision the Board applied in the instant case. 

Id. Section 25-823(c) provides that:

A licensee shall be required to comply with the terms and 

conditions of the licensee’s settlement agreement, 

security plan, or order from the Board that is attached to 

the license during all times that it is in operation. A 

single violation of a settlement agreement, security plan, 

or order from the Board shall be sufficient to prove a 

violation of subsection (a)(6) of this section.

D.C. Code § 25-823(c).

Rosebar relies on the Council’s expressed intent to codify the Rumors 

decision to imply that § 25-823(c) cannot mean without qualification what it says 

about a single security-plan violation sufficing to prove a violation. Rosebar 
11

implies that § 25-823(c) must be understood to include the same proviso that § 25-

823(b) contains. Rosebar argues that, as Rumors established, the Board could find 

a violation of § 25-823(a)(6) only if it had before it “evidence of a continuous 

course of conduct to establish that [Rosebar] fail[ed] to follow its security plan.” 

Rumors, 56 A.3d at 495.

We disagree.2

 To begin with, the statutory language is clear and 

unambiguous on its face; § 25-823(c) makes a single violation of a security plan 

sufficient to prove a violation of § 25-823(a)(6) and contains no “method of 

operation that is conducive” proviso. Hence, Rumors notwithstanding, the Board’s 

interpretation that the Rosebar Security Plan violations that occurred during the 

May 1, 2016, incident were sufficient to establish a violation, was “not plainly 

wrong.” 800 Water St., 992 A.2d at 1274. We have previously recognized the 

unremarkable principle that a court opinion is no longer controlling when it has 

been superseded by a statute that codifies an interpretation that the court rejected. 

See, e.g., Frankel v. District of Columbia Office for Planning & Econ. Dev., 110 

A.3d 553, 557 (D.C. 2015) (noting that a D.C. Circuit opinion “was superseded by 

statute when Congress amended the federal FOIA to codify the catalyst theory” the 

 

2

 We note that we have no occasion to consider whether the two instances 

of improper use of force by Rosebar security employee Noupa on a single evening 

could reasonably be said to amount to a course of conduct by Mr. Noupa.
12

D.C. Circuit had rejected); see also Hazel v. United States, 483 A.2d 1157, 1159

(D.C. 1984) (“When the legislature acts in an area in which it is competent to act, 

such enactment limits the authority of the court.” (citation omitted)).

Second, while the Committee Report refers to the Council’s intent “to clarify 

and codify the current state of the law in light of the Rumors decision . . . ,” 

Committee Report at 2, the very next sentence in the Report explains what that 

means: “The amended language [in § 25-823(b)] clarifies that a single incident of 

assault, sexual assault, or violence is sufficient to sustain a violation provided that 

the licensee has engaged in a method of operation that is conducive to unlawful or 

disorderly conduct.” That explanation, which is set out in a section of the Report 

entitled “Acts of Violence,” is faithful to the text of § 25-823(b).3

 While the 

Committee might have included a sentence explaining that it intended to codify the 

 

3

 Rosebar relies on the third sentence, which states that “[t]he amendment 

seeks to reduce collective case law to statutory form and is not intended to change 

the status of the law or the burden of proof required by the Rumors decision, or the 

decisions in Levelle, Inc. v. D[istrict of]C[olumbia] Alcoholic Beverage Control 

Bd., 924 A.2d 1030 (D[.]C[.] 2007)[,] and Am-Chi Rest.[, Inc.] v. Simonson, 396 

F.2d 686 (1968).” But the fact that, as noted above, this discussion is in a section 

of the Report entitled “Acts of Violence” makes it reasonable to read it as referring 

to maintaining the status of the law and the burden of proof as to charged 

violations of § 25-823(a)(2), relating to allowing an establishment to be used for an 

unlawful or disorderly purpose. That reading is also supported by the fact that the 

“use[] for any unlawful or disorderly purpose” provision is the only provision of 

what is now § 25-823(a) that is discussed in Levelle, 924 A.2d at 1035, and AmChi, 396 F.2d at 687.
13

holding in Rumors with respect to what is necessary to establish a licensee’s failure 

to follow its security plan, it did not do so, and with good reason: such an 

explanation, far from being faithful to the text of new § 25-823(c), would have 

contradicted that new provision, which declares that a single violation of a security 

plan “shall be sufficient to prove a violation of subsection (a)(6),” without any 

proviso. 

Third, in the section of the Committee Report entitled “Impact on Existing 

Legislation,” the Committee explained the impact of both § 25-823(b) and § 25-

823(c):

[The amended statute] would allow the Board to hold 

licensees responsible for a single assault, sexual assault, 

or other violent act provided that the licensee has 

engaged in a method of operation that is conducive to 

unlawful or disorderly conduct. Finally, the bill clarifies 

that a licensee may be held accountable for a single 

violation of its settlement agreement, security plan, or 

Board order. 

Committee Report at 11. The juxtaposition confirms that the legislators’ intent 

with respect to what is necessary to establish an “unlawful or disorderly purpose” 

violation is different from their intent with respect to what is necessary to establish 

a violation of a security plan. Accordingly, we cannot say that the Board’s 
14

interpretation of § 25-823(c) was “inconsistent with the legislative purpose.” 800 

Water St., 992 A.2d at 1274.

Fourth, the Committee Report includes comments on the proposed 

legislation by ABRA Director Fred P. Moosally, which suggest why it is not 

unreasonable to treat “unlawful or disorderly purpose” violations in a manner 

different from security-plan violations. Director Moosally referred to “concerns 

raised at the October 27 hearing regarding the proposed . . . [b]ill provision 

involving a licensee being found in violation for a single violent incident outside of 

the licensee’s control[.]” Committee Report at 109-11 (emphasis added). He 

relayed ABRA’s recommendation that the Council add additional language to the 

end of proposed subsection 25-823(b) so that the provision would read as follows:

A single incident of assault, sexual assault, or violence 

shall be sufficient to prove a violation of subsection 

(a)(2) of this section provided that there is a 

demonstrable connection between the incident and the 

establishment’s operation.

Committee Report at 109-11 (emphasis added). Director Moosally explained that 

ABRA’s proposed language would clarify that a licensee is not responsible for a 

single incident of assault, sexual assault, or violence “where there is not a 
15

demonstrable connection between the incident and the establishment’s operation.” 

Id. The Council added the “method of operation that is conducive” proviso instead 

of the language ABRA proposed, but ABRA’s proposed language points to why it 

is not unreasonable to treat a single violation of an establishment’s security plan, 

without qualification, as sanctionable: the assumption that there is generally, if not 

always, a demonstrable connection between an establishment’s operation (e.g., 

whether it trains its staff on the details of its security plan, whether it holds its 

managers accountable for enforcing the security plan, etc.) and a violation of its 

security plan. The facts of this case demonstrate such a connection: although one 

of Rosebar’s managers and its head of security observed Mr. Noupa forcibly 

removing Ms. Hakir from Rosebar, neither of those individuals (nor any other 

managers or security employees) intervened to enforce the procedures specified in 

the Security Plan regarding the ejection of patrons and the use of force. For his 

part, Mr. Noupa failed to summon assistance from a manager even though, per the 

testimony of head of security Mr. Mack, Rosebar’s Security Plan required security 

staff to request assistance in the event that a patron needs to be ejected. 

Finally, we address Rosebar’s argument that the Board’s “single incident” 

interpretation is “unworkable,” “leads to unreasonable results,” and “undermines 

the public-safety goals.” Rosebar asserts that the “practical import” of the Board’s 
16

interpretation is that “licensees will almost certainly start to curtail their security 

plans,” and will omit details that amount to “more opportunities for 

noncompliance,” with the result that they will have “bare-bones security plan[s]” 

that will “undermine the public-safety aims of the ABC Law.” We are not 

persuaded by this argument. 

D.C. Code § 25-402(d)(3) (2019 Supp.) provides that a licensee’s written 

security plan “shall include at least the following elements”:

(A) A statement on the type of security training provided 

for, and completed by, establishment personnel, 

including:

(i) Conflict resolution training;

(ii) Procedures for handling violent incidents, other 

emergencies, and calling the Metropolitan Police 

Department; and

(iii) Procedures for crowd control and preventing 

overcrowding;

(B) The establishment’s procedures for permitting 

patrons to enter;

(C) A description of how security personnel are stationed 

inside and in front of the establishment and the number 

and location of cameras used by the establishment;
17

(D) Procedures in place to prevent patrons from 

becoming intoxicated and ensuring that only persons 21 

years or older are served alcohol;

(E) A description of how the establishment maintains an 

incident log; and

(F) The establishment’s procedures for preserving a 

crime scene.

D.C. Code § 25-402(d)(3)(A)-(F). Because the mandated elements will require an 

establishment’s security plan to include a significant level of detail, we think 

Rosebar’s concern is not well-founded.4

 

4

 Rosebar also complains that under the Board’s interpretation, it will be 

held accountable if, for example, its personnel fail to comply with the Security 

Plan provision that states that “[a]ll guests must receive an enthusiastic exit 

greeting.” We see no reason to think that the Board would seek to enforce that 

provision, because it has nothing to do with the elements that must be included in a 

security plan per § 25-402(d). And, in any event, it is not obvious to us why an 

establishment would include an “enthusiastic exit greeting” provision in its 

security plan.
18

IV.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Board’s order is

Affirmed.