2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-5-2007 

# Ro se v . Alle nt own P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5319

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ros e v . Alle nt own" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1810. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1810NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O S. 05- 5319 & 05- 5507

________________ J I M I RO SE,

A p p e llan t, v. CI T Y OF AL L E NT OWN; Z ONI NG HE AR I NG B OAR D OF T HE CI T Y OF A L L E N T O WN

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N os . 02- cv- 03842 & 04- cv- 02853) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e R . D a v is

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober30, 2006 Be f o r e : BA RRY , CH AG AR ES AN D R OTH , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J anuary5, 2007 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM T hi s cas e ar i s es fr om a zoni ng di s put e betw een the Pl ai nt i ff, J i m i R os e, and the D efen dan t s, the C i tyof A l l entow n an d the Z on i ng B oard of the C i tyof A l l entow n. R oseA s the r ecor d i ndi cat es , the es t abl i s hm enthas been c al l ed “H ol l yw ood N i ght s ” and 1 “Si n C i tySt r i pper s ” dur i ng i t s hi s t ory . Forpurpos es of thi s opi ni on, w e w i l l r efe rt o t he es t abl i s hm entas “the cl ub. ” 2 oper at es a br i ng y ourow n bot t l e ( “B Y O B ”) es t abl i s hm enti n A l l ent ow n, Penns y l vani a. 1 P e rf o rm e rs d a n c e in th e n u d e a t th e c lu b . T he A l l ent ow n Z oni ng code c l as s i fi es the cl ub as a “c abar et . ” W hi l e the cl ub vi ol at es the appl i cabl e zoni ng or di nance s , the Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d gr ant ed a s peci al exce pt i on t o oper at e the cl ub i n Sept ember1993. T he B oar d gr ant ed the exc ept i on on t he c o n d itio n th a t th e c lu b o n ly b e o p e n e d f ro m n o o n to m id n ig h t, M o n d a yth ro u g h S a tu rd a y . I n 1998, A l l ent ow n enac t ed an or di nance thatpr ohi bi t ed B Y O B es t abl i s hm ent s fr om o p e ra tin g b e tw e e n m id n ig h t a n d 8 :0 0 a .m . I n 1999, R os e r eques t ed a va r i ance thatthe cl ub be al l ow ed t o oper at e M onday th ro u g h S a tu rd a yu n til 2 :0 0 a .m . R o se a lso re q u e ste d th a t th e c lu b b e a llo w e d to o p e ra te on Sunday s betw een 1: 00 p. m . and 9: 00 p. m . T he Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d deni ed the r eques t s on Sept ember13, 1999. R os e appe al ed t o the C our tof C om m on Pl eas , L ehi gh C o u n ty . R o se m a d e se v e ra l ar g u m e n ts b e f o re th e C o u rt o f

C o m m o n P lea s, in c lu d in g th a t: (1) the Z on i ng H eari ng B oard’s den i al w as an un con st i tuti on al i nfri ng em ent on his F i rs t A m e n d m e n t rig h ts; a n d (2 ) th e Z o n in g H e a rin g B o a rd ’s d e n ial o f h is re q u e sts w a s ra c ially di s cr i m i nat oryand deni ed hi m equal pr ot ect i on underthe l aw . T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas deni ed ea ch of Rose’ s cl ai m s . T he C om m onw eal th C our tof Penns y l vani a af fi r m ed on February28, 2002. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed R os e’ s pet i t i on for1 T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted R o se ’s r e q u e st to f ile a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. 2 R os e al s o al l eged thatthe zoni ng or di nance s w er e over l ybr oad i n thattheypr ecl uded 3 his ri gh tt o free speech and free expressi on . T his al l egati on i s subsum ed w i thin hi s Fir st A m e n d m e n t c la im . T he doctr i ne i s der i ved fr om R ookerv. Fi del i tyT rus tC o. , 263 U . S. 413 ( 1923) , and 4 D is tr ic t o f

C o lu m b ia C o u rt o f

A p p e a ls v . F e ld m a n , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ).

3 a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l. A s R o se ’s p e tit io n f

o r a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g b e f o re th e P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our t , he fi l ed hi s fi r s tfede r al compl ai nt , D i s tr i ctC our tD kt . N o. 02- cv- 03842 ( the “f i r s tfede r al compl ai nt ”) . R os e r ai s ed s ever al cl ai m s i n hi s amended compl ai nt , 2 i ncl udi ng that : ( 1) the zoni ng or di nance s w er e over l ybr oad and vi ol at ed hi s r i ghtt o fr ee sp e e c h a n d f

re e e x p re ss io n ; (2 ) th e Z o n in g H e a rin g B o a rd a n d th e o rd in a n c e s v io late d h is F i r s tAm e n d me n tf

r e e s p e e c h r i g h t s ; ( 3 ) Ro s e wa s d e n i e d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n u n d e rth e l a w; 3 and ( 4) R os e w as di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns ton the bas i s of r ace . I ni t i al l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent an d the c ase w as li sted fo r tri al. O n the d ate o f tri al, R o se o rall ym o v ed fo r a v o lun tary d is m is s a l o f

th e c a s e . T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t w ith o u t p re ju d ic e . Subse quent l y , R os e s ucce s s ful l ym oved t o vaca t e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al or der , and the mat t erw as r eopene d. O n O ct ober31, 2005, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on w i th pr ej udi ce due t o a l ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. T he D i s tr i ctC our tr el i ed on the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne i n di s m i s s i ng the compl ai nt . R os e t i m el yfi l ed a not i ce of 4 a p p e a l, C .A . N o . 0 5 -5 3 1 9 .4

A s R os e’ s fi r s tfede r al compl ai ntw as pr ogr es s i ng, he fi l ed anothervar i ance r eques tt o ext end the hour s of oper at i on of the cl ub. R os e r eques t ed thatthe cl ub be a llo w e d to re m a in o p e n u n til 2 :0 0 a .m . o n M o n d a y , T h u rs d a y , F ri d a ya n d S a tu rd a yn ig h ts . T he Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d deni ed the r eques ton J anuary24, 2004. R os e appe al ed t o the C our tof C om m on Pl eas , L ehi gh C ounty . A m ong hi s cl ai m s , R os e ar gued that : ( 1) the r egul at i ons vi ol at ed hi s fr eedom of spe ech a nd fr eedom of expr es s i on r i ght s underthe Penns y l vani a C ons t i tut i on; and ( 2) the Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d vi ol at ed hi s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s bydi s cr i m i nat i ng agai ns thi m beca us e he di d nothave a s t at e l i quor lice n se . T h e C o u rt o f

C o m m o n P lea s a f

f irm e d th e Z o n in g H e a rin g B o a rd ’s d e n ial o f th is re q u e st. R o se a p p e a led to th e C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt o f P e n n sy lv a n ia a n d a d d iti o n a lly ar gued thatthe Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d’ s deci s i on w as r aci al l ydi s cr i m i nat ory . T he C om m onw eal th C our taff i r m ed the C our tof C om m on Pl eas ’ deci s i on. H ow ever , the Co mmo n we a l th Co u r ts t a t e d th a t“ a z o n i n g h e a r i n g b o a r d , o ra n yc o u r to n a p p e a l f r o m a zoni ng hear i ng boar d’ s deci s i on, does nothave the author i tyt o addr es s the type of di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s R os e i s r ai s i ng i n hi s appea l befor e thi s C our t . A nyar gum ent s t hat R os e has been r aci al l ydi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tbythe C i tyorthe B oar d w oul d have t o be r ai s ed i n an appr opr i at e ac t i on i n ci vi l court . ” R os e v. Z oni ng H ear i ng B d. of A l l ent ow n, N o . 2 7 0 6 C . D . 2 0 0 4 (P a. C o m m w . C t. A p ri l 22 , 2 0 0 5 ). T h e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt d e n ie d R o s e ’s p e titio n f o r a llo w a n c e o f

a p p e a l o n N o v e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 5 . O n J une 28, 2004, R os e fi l ed hi s s econd f eder al compl ai nt , D i s tr i ctC our tD kt . N o.5

04- cv- 02853 ( the “s econd f eder al compl ai nt ”) . I n the compl ai nt , R os e al l eged that : ( 1) hi s equal pr ot ect i on r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed w hen the Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d di s cr i m i nat ed a g a in st h im b e c a u se h e d id n o t h a v e a sta te liq u o r lice n se ; (2 ) h is e q u a l p ro tec tio n rig h ts w er e vi ol at ed w hen the Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d s el ect i vel yenfor ced the l aw s and o rd in a n c e s b a se d o n ra c e ; an d (3 ) h is f re e e x p re ss io n rig h ts u n d e r th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C ons t i tut i on w er e vi ol at ed. I n t hi s compl ai nt , R os e r efe r ence d the Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d’ s J anuary27, 2004 deci s i on deny i ng hi s r eques tforaddi t i onal hour s of oper at i on on M onday , T hur s day , Fr i dayand Satur dayni ght s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t on N o v em b er 1 8 , 2 0 0 5 . Itfo u n d that R o se’s s e le c tiv e e n f

o rc e m e n t c la im w a s b a rr e d p u rs u a n t to th e R o o k e r- F e ld m a n d o c tr in e . A ddi t i onal l y , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatal l of the cl ai m s w er e barr ed bas ed on r es j udi cat a. R os e t i m el yfi l ed a not i ce of appea l , C . A . N o. 05- 5507. W e cons ol i dat ed R os e’ s tw o appea l s , C . A . N os . 05- 5319 and 05- 5507, forbr i efi ng and di s pos i t i on. W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. See Turne rv. C raw ford S qu are A partm ents II I, L . P . , 44 9 F . 3d 54 2, 54 7 (3d C i r. 20 06 ). W e al so e x e r c i s e p l e n a r yr e v i e w o v e rth e g r a n to f s u mma ryj u d g me n t , a n d we a p p l yth e s a me s t andar d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have appl i ed. See R egent s of M er cer s bur g C ol l . v. R ep u b li c F ran k li n Ins. C o . , 4 5 8 F . 3 d 1 5 9 , 1 6 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )(cit ati o n o m itted). S u m m ary j udgm enti s pr operw hen, vi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non-6

m o v a n t, th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t an d th e m o v in g p a rtyis e n tit led to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . S ee S alda n a v . K M art C o rp., 2 6 0 F . 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); F ED . R. C IV . P . 5 6 (c). W ith resp ec t t o R o se’s f ir st fed era l com p lai n t, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deci s i on, al bei ton di ffe r entgr ounds . T he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne depr i ves a D i s tr i ct C our tof j ur i s di ct i on i n s om e ci r cumst ance s t o r evi ew a s t at e courtadj udi cat i on. See Turne r , 44 9 F. 3d a t54 7. I n Exx on M ob i l Corp. v. Sa ud i Bas i c I nd us tr i e s Corp. , 54 4 U. S. 280 ( 2005) , the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our temphasi zed the narr ow s cope of the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. I thel d t hatR ooker - Fel dm an “i s confi ned t o cas es br oughtby stat e-c o u rtlose rs co m p lai n ing o f in juri es c au sed b ystat e-c o u rtjud g m en ts r en d ere d b ef o re the di s tr i ctcourtpr ocee di ngs comm ence d and i nvi t i ng di s tr i ctcourtr evi ew and r ej ect i on o f th o s e j u d g me n t s . ” S e e i d . a t2 8 4 ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) . I n Ex x o n M o b i l , th e S u p r e me C our ts t at ed that“the doctr i ne has s om et i m es been c ons trued t o ext end fa rbey ond the cont our s of the R ookerand Fel dm an ca s es . ” 544 U . S. at283. I n thi s cas e, the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n di s m i s s i ng R os e’ s fi r s tfede r al compl ai ntby appl y i ng the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne bey ond the cont our s of the R ookerand Fel dm an ca ses. R o se’s f

ir st fed era l com p lai n t did n o t com p lai n o f in juri es c au sed b ya state-co u rt j ud gm ent. R at her, R ose’s fi rs tfede ral com plai nt ar ose ou tof the vari ance requ estprocess befo re the Z on i ng H eari ng B oard be ginni ng i n 1 99 9. T hu s, R ose’s cl ai m s i n the fi rs t f e d e ra l co m p lain t w e re n o t ca u se d b ya sta te- c o u rt ju d g m e n t, bu t, rath e r, w e re a ttribu tab leW e not e thatthe D efe ndant s ar gued thatr es j udi cat a barr ed R os e’ s fi r s tfede r al 5 compl ai nti n t he D i s tr i ctC our t . A ddi t i onal l y , on appea l , the D efe ndant s as s ertthati f the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne does notappl y , r es j udi cat a bar s R os e’ s cl ai m s r ai s ed i n the f irst f e d e ra l co m p lain t. 7 to the D ef

en d an ts’ all eg ed ac ti o n s tha t prec ed ed an ystat e-c o u rtjud g m en t. S ee T u rne r, 449 F. 3d at547. W e not e thatR os e’ s fi r s tfede r al compl ai ntover l aps w i th hi s adj udi cat ed s t at eco u rtclaim s arisi n g o u t of the s tat e-c o u rtp roc ee d ing s fro m the Z o n ing H ea ri n g B o ard ’s deni al of hi s fi r s tvar i ance r eques ti n 1999. H ow ever , “thi s over l ap does notm ean that the R o o k er-F eldm an d o ctri n e is ap p li ca b le he re.” S ee id. A s n o ted b ythe S u p rem e C o u rt i n E xxon M obi l and thi s C our ti n T urner , “a di s tr i ctcourti s notdi ves t ed of s ubj ect - m att er ju risd ictio n sim p lyb e c a u se a p a rtya ttem p ts to lit ig a te in f e d e ra l co u rt a m a tter p re v io u sly l i t i gat ed i n s t at e court . ” I d. ( ci t i ng E xxon M obi l C orp. , 544 U . S. at292) . T her efor e, t he D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n hol di ng thatthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne depr i ved i tof s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r R o s e ’s f ir s t f e d e ra l c o m p la in t. W hi l e w e r ej ectthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr ounds fordi s m i s s i ng R os e’ s fi r s tcompl ai nt forl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on, w e ca n aff i r m on othergr ounds . See i d. at548 ( c i t i n g W i t t e k a m p v . G u l f & W . , I n c . , 9 9 1 F . 2 d 1 1 3 7 , 1 1 4 3 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ) . S p e c i f i c a l l y, w e w ill c o n sid e r w h e th e r th e d o c trin e o f re s ju d ica ta b a rs R o se ’s f irst f e d e ra l co m p lain t. 5 A fede r al courtr efe r s t o t he pr ecl us i on l aw of the s t at e i n w hi ch j udgm entw as en tered . S ee M cN asb yv . C row n C o rk & S ea l C o . , Inc . , 8 8 8 F . 2 d 2 7 0 , 2 7 6 (3d C ir .8

1989) ( quot i ng M arr es e v. A m . A cad. of O r thopaedi c Sur geons , 470 U . S. 373, 380 ( 1985) ) . R es j udi cat a: bar s a l at eract i on on al l orpartof the cl ai m w hi ch w as the s ubj ectof the fi r s tact i on. A nyfi nal , val i d j udgm enton the mer i t s bya courtof compet ent j ur i s di ct i on pr ecl udes anyfutur e s ui tbetw een the part i es orthei rpr i vi es on th e sa m e c a u se o f

a c tio n . R e s ju d ica ta a p p lies n o t o n lyto c laim s a c tu a lly l i t i gated, bu tal so t o clai m s w hich cou l d h ave b een li t i gated du ri ng the fir st pr ocee di ng i f theyw er e partof the s ame caus e of a ct i on. B a l e n tv . C i ty o f

W i l k e s - B a r r e , 6 6 9 A . 2 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 3 ( P a . 1 9 9 5 ) . F o rr e s j u d i c a t a t o a p p l y, the tw o act i ons m us ts har e the fol l ow i ng fourcondi t i ons : ( 1) the thi ng s ued upon for ; ( 2) the ca us e of a ct i on; ( 3) the per s ons and part i es t o the ac t i on; and ( 4) the capaci tyof the p a rt ie s to s u e o r b e s u e d . S e e B e a ro f f v . B e a ro f

f B ro s ., In c ., 3 2 7 A .3 d 7 2 , 7 4 (P a . 1 9 7 4 ). U pon r evi ew i ng the C om m onw eal th C our t ’ s deci s i on, R os e v. Z oni ng H ear i ng B d. of C i tyof A l l ent ow n, N o. 1009 C . D . 2001 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . Feb. 28, 2002) , i ti s cl ear th a t a ll o f

R o s e ’s c la im s ra is e d in h is f ir s t f e d e ra l c o m p la in t a re b a rr e d b yre s ju d ic a ta . T h e p a rt ie s a n d th e c a u s e s o f a c tio n w e re th e s a m e in b o th th e s ta te a n d f e d e ra l m a tte rs . Fur therm or e, the C om m onw eal th C our tent er ed a f i nal j udgm enton the mer i t s on al l of the c lai m s raised in R o se’s f ir st fed era l com p lai n t. Ind ee d , the C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt sta ted : R o se a rg u e s th a t th e o rd in a n c e v io late s h is F irst A m e n d m e n t rig h t to fr eedom of spe ech, al l egi ng thatthe [Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d] i s us i ng the o r d i n a n c e t o l i mi te r o t i c d a n c i n g . Th e o r d i n a n c e i s a c o n t e n t - n e u tr a l t i me r es tr i ct i on ai m ed atr egul at i ng the hour s of oper at i on forB Y O B s , notthe type of e nt ert ai nm enti tcan pr ovi de. I n fac t , the [Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d] g ra n ted R o se ’s 1 9 9 3 sp e c ial e x c e p tio n to p e rm it th e sp e c if ic typ e o f

a d u lt e n ter tain m e n t p ro v id e d o n th e p re m ise s, a n d h e h a s o p e ra ted th e a d u lt9

caba r etforthe l as tei ghty ear s . L i kew i s e, the C our tfi nds no s uppor tfor R os e’ s cont ent i on thathe w as r aci al l ydi s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns tand deni ed e q u a l p ro te c tio n o f

th e la w . Id . slip . o p . at 7 . T h u s, it is c lea r th a t re s ju d ica ta a p p lies to b a r th e c laim s ra ise d in R o se ’s f irst f e d e ra l co m p lain t. I n hi s appel l at e br i ef, R os e ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tvi ol at ed the l aw - of- thecas e doctr i ne byfi r s tdeny i ng the D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , and then l at erdi s m i s s i ng the ac t i on. T he D efe ndant s ar gued thatthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne s houl d be appl i ed i n t hei rs um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. T he Supr eme C our thas s t at ed that th e law -o f

-th e -c a se d o c trin e m e re lye x p re ss e s th e p ra c tice o f c o u rts to g e n e ra llyre f

u se to r eopen w hathas been de ci ded. See C hr i s t i ans on v. C ol tI ndus . O per at i ng C orp. , 486 U . S. 800, 817 ( 1988) . H ow ever , fede r al court s have a dutyt o exami ne thei rs ubj ect m att erj ur i s di ct i on atal l s t ages of the l i t i gat i on. See e. g. , U ni t ed St at es E xpr es s L i nes L td. v. H igg ins, 28 1 F . 3 d 3 8 3 , 3 8 8 -89 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H ere , the D istri ct C o u rt det erm i ned, al bei ti ncorr ect l y , thati tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. R egar dl es s , the D i s tr i ctC our tcoul d r evi ew w hetheri thad su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r th e c o m p lain t. T h u s, R o se ’s la w -o f -th e -c a se d o c trin e is c le a rl yw ith o u t m e ri t. N ex t, w e w il l con side r w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rtp rop erlyg ran ted s u m m ary j udgm enti n favorof the D efe ndant s on R os e’ s s econd f eder al compl ai nt . T he D i s tr i ct C our tfound thatthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne barr ed R os e’ s s el ect i ve enf or cement10

cl ai m . A ddi t i onal l y , i tdet erm i ned thatr es j udi cat a appl i ed t o the ent i r e s econd f eder al c o m p lain t. T he D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n fi ndi ng thatthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne barr ed R os e’ s s el ect i ve enf

or cementcl ai m . I n the s econd f eder al compl ai nt , R os e al l eged that th e D e f e n d a n ts w e re ra c iallyd isc rim in a to ryw h e n th e yd e n ied h is v a ria n c e re q u e st to a llo w th e c lu b to b e o p e n to 2 :0 0 a .m . o n M o n d a y , T h u rs d a y , F ri d a ya n d S a tu rd a yn ig h ts . A s p rev iou slyn o ted, R o o k er-F eldm an “is co n fin ed to ca ses b rou g h t bystat e-c o u rtlose rs co m p lai n ing o f in

juri es c au sed b ystat e-c o u rtjud g m en ts r en d ere d b ef o re the d istri ct co u rt proceed i ng s com m enced and i nv i t i ng dis tri ctcou rtrevi ew and rej ect i on of those jud g m en ts. ” S ee E x x o n M o b il C o rp., 5 4 4 U . S . at 48 4 (em p h asis ad d ed ). H ere , R o se’s s el ect i ve enf

or cementcl ai m w as notcaus ed bya s t at e- courtj udgm ent . T her efor e, R ooker - Fel dm an i s agai n i nappl i cabl e. W e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatr es j udi cat a appl i es t o R os e’ s equal p ro tec tio n (b a se d o n th e lac k o f a sta te liq u o r lice n se ) c laim a n d h is f re e e x p re ss io n c laim un der the P enn sy l van i a C on st i tuti on . T he C ou rtof C om m on P l eas den i ed b oth of t hese c laim s. S e e R o se v . Z o n in g H e a rin g B d . o f C ityo f A llen to w n , N o . 2 0 0 4 -C -4 6 (C t. C om m on Pl eas , N ov. 19, 2004) . T he C om m onw eal th C our tof Penns y l vani a af fi r m ed the d e n i a l o f th e s e c l a i ms . Ro s e v . Z o n i n g He a r i n g Bd . o f Ci tyo f Al l e n t o wn , No . 2 7 0 6 C. D. 2 0 0 4 (P a . C o m m w . C t. Ju n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 5 ). T h e p a rties a re id e n tica l in th is s tate a c tio n a n d in th e s e c o n d f

e d e ra l c o m p la in t. T h e re f o re , re s ju d ic a ta c le a rl ya p p lie s .11

N ext , w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n concl udi ng thatr es j udi cat a barr ed R o se ’s s e lec tiv e e n f

o rc e m e n t cla im . W ith re sp e c t to th is c laim , the P e n n sy lv a n ia C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt sta ted : B ei ng a cr eatur e of s t atut e, a zoni ng hear i ng boar d, oranycourton appea l f ro m a z o n in g h e a rin g b o a rd ’s d e c isio n , d o e s n o t h a v e th e a u th o rityto addr es s the type of di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s R os e i s r ai s i ng i n hi s appea l befor e thi s C our t . A nyar gum ent s thatR os e has been r aci al l ydi s cr i m i nat ed a g a in st b yth e C ityo r th e B o a rd w o u ld h a v e to b e ra ise d in a n a p p ro p ria te a c tio n in c iv il c o u rt . Id. sl ip. op . at 8. T h u s, w e f ind that there w as n o t a j u d g m en t on the m erit s o f R o se’s se lec tiv e e n f

o rc e m e n t cla im . W e d isa g re e th a t th is c laim sh o u ld h a v e b e e n p re se n ted in the 1999 s t at e courtl i t i gat i on. I ndeed, R os e as s ert s thatthe purpor t ed s el ect i ve enfor cementoccurr ed af t erthe s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs ar i s i ng fr om the fi r s tvar i ance r eques tw er e compl et e. T hus , r es j udi cat a does notbarR os e’ s s el ect i ve enf or cement c l a i m. N eith er res ju d icata n o r th e R o o k er-F eldm an d o ctri n e is ap p li ca b le t o R o se’s se lec tiv e e n f

o rc e m e n t cla im se t f

o rth in th e se c o n d f

e d e ra l co m p lain t. H o w e v e r, w e w ill a f f ir m th e g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in f a v o r o f th e D e f e n d a n ts o n a lte rn a tiv e g ro u n d s . S ee T u rne r, 4 4 9 F . 3 d at 54 7 (cit ati o n o m itted). R os e as s ert s thatthe D efe ndant s s el ect i vel yenfor ced the ci tyor di nance s and zoni ng l aw s agai ns thi m beca us e he i s A fr i can- A m er i can. R os e al l eged thatw hi t e cl ub ow ner s w er e gi ven pr efe r ent i al tr eatm entand thatthe D efe ndant s s el ect i vel yenfor ced the ci tyor di nance s and zoni ng l aw s . T he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e pr ohi bi t s s el ect i ve12

enfor cementof the l aw bas ed on r ace . See W hr en v. U ni t ed St at es , 517 U . S. 806, 813 (1 9 9 6 ); T h o m a s v . In d e p e n d e n c e T w p ., – F .3 d – , 2 0 0 6 W L 2 6 2 1 0 9 4 , at * 9 (3 d C ir. S e p t. 14, 2006) . A pl ai nt i ff c an r ecove ri f i tcan be es t abl i s hed that : “( 1) the per s on, compar ed w i th other s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, w as s el ect i vel ytr eat ed, and ( 2) the s el ect i ve tr eatm entw as m oti vated byan int enti on t o d i scr i m i nate on t he b asi s of i m perm i ssi ble consi derat i on s, su c h a s ra c e .” Z a h ra v . T o w n o f S o u th o ld , 4 8 F .3 d 6 7 4 , 6 8 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); se e a lso H ill v . C ityo f S cra n ton , 4 1 1 F . 3 d 1 1 8 , 1 2 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n s uppor tof hi s cl ai m , R os e r efe r ence s a “c abar et ” cl ub ow ned byE r v Fetherm an ( her ei naft err efe r r ed t o as “Erv’ s ”) , as s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed. Si m i l art o R os e, E r v’ s r ece i ved a s peci al exce pt i on t o oper at e hi s “ca bar et ” fr om noon t o m i dni ght , M ondaythr ough Satur day . E r v’ s r eques t ed a va r i ance t o oper at e fr om 8: 00 a. m . t o m i dni ght , fi ve day s out of a y ear . T he Zoni ng H ear i ng B oar d gr ant ed the r eques taft erconcl udi ng thatthe ad d it ion al ho u rs (tw en tyh o u rs pe r y ea r) w ere d e m inim u s. U n li k e E rv’s req u est, R o se’s s econd va r i ance r eques tas ked forover400 hour s of addi t i onal hour s of oper at i on per y e a r. W e c o n c lu d e th a t th is d if f e re n c e p re c lu d e s a f

in d in g th a t R o se ’s c lu b w a s s im ilarly s i tuat ed t o E r v’ s . T hus , s um m aryj udgm entw as pr oper l ygr ant ed i n favorof the D efe ndant s beca us e ther e i s no i s s ue of mat er i al fac tw i th r es pectt o thi s s el ect i ve e n f o r c e me n tc l a i m. In conc l usi on , w e determ i ne thatthe D i stri ctC ou rterr ed in di sm i ssi ng R ose’s fi rs t fede r al compl ai ntpur s uantt o t he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. H ow ever , w e w i l l aff i r m t he13

di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntbeca us e R os e’ s cl ai m s ar e barr ed byr es j udi cat a. W i th r es pect t o R os e’ s s econd f

eder al compl ai nt , w e fi nd thatthe equa l pr ot ect i on cl ai m ( bas ed upon th e lac k o f

a sta te liq u o r lice n se ) a n d th e f re e e x p re ss io n c laim u n d e r th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C ons t i tut i on ar e al s o barr ed byr es j udi cat a. A ddi t i onal l y , w e det erm i ne thatR os e fa i l ed t o es t abl i s h a mat er i al i s s ue of f actw i th r es pectt o hi s equal pr ot ect i on/ s el ect i ve e n f o rc e m e n t c la im . A c c o rd in g ly, w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n ts o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .