Court Opinion

ID: 9930142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-06 14:05:24.156591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:03:51.798290
License: Public Domain

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
                         Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

                                STATE OF MINNESOTA
                                IN COURT OF APPEALS
                                      A23-0607

                          City of Blaine, a Municipal Corporation,
                                        Respondent,

                                             vs.

                                Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt,
                                         Relator.

                                 Filed February 5, 2024
                                 Reversed and remanded
                                     Larkin, Judge

                                       City of Blaine

Kevin S. Sandstrom, Eckberg Lammers, P.C., Stillwater, Minnesota (for respondent)

Marshall H. Tanick, Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator)

         Considered and decided by Frisch, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Larkin,

Judge.

                            NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION

LARKIN, Judge

         Relator-restaurant-owner challenges respondent city’s denial of her liquor-license

application. Because the record indicates that the decision to deny relator’s application

was made by the city clerk, and not the city council as required by city ordinance, we

reverse and remand for a decision by the city council.
                                          FACTS

       Relator Shanice Chante Hines-Hyatt owns the Irie Vybz Jamaican Restaurant. In

the fall of 2022, relator moved the restaurant from Brooklyn Center to Blaine. After

moving the restaurant, relator applied to respondent City of Blaine for on-sale and Sunday

sale intoxicating liquor licenses.

       In February 2023, the city council considered relator’s liquor-license application at

a public hearing. The council unanimously approved relator’s application. One month

later, the city clerk notified relator, by letter dated March 14, 2023, that her application

“[was] being denied.” The letter informed relator that she had “the right to appeal within

20 days . . . by notifying the City Clerk’s Office in writing.”

       Relator notified respondent of her desire to appeal, and respondent provided a

hearing before a hearing officer. Relator was self-represented at the hearing; respondent

did not appear. The hearing officer issued a decision as follows: “[T]he conditions for

denial are confirmed, and denial of the Intoxicating Liquor License is hereby upheld.”

       Relator brings this certiorari appeal challenging respondent’s denial of her

application for on-sale and Sunday sale liquor licenses.

                                        DECISION

       Judicial review of the denial of a liquor license is obtained through certiorari.

Micius v. St. Paul City Council, 524 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Minn. App. 1994). “Municipal

authorities have broad discretion to determine the manner in which liquor licenses are

issued, regulated, and revoked.”      Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp. v. City of St. Paul,

466 N.W.2d 438, 440 (Minn. App. 1991). And “a city council is vested with broad

                                              2
discretion in its consideration of a liquor license application.” Country Liquors, Inc. v. City

Council, 264 N.W.2d 821, 824 (Minn. 1978) (quotation omitted).

       On certiorari appeal from a quasi-judicial decision not subject to the Minnesota

Administrative Procedure Act, our review includes the regularity of the decision-making

process. Anderson v. Comm’r of Health, 811 N.W.2d 162, 165 (Minn. App. 2012), rev.

denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2012). Specifically, we review the record to determine if the

decision-making body followed the correct procedure. Smith v. Minn. Dep’t of Hum.

Servs., 764 N.W.2d 388, 391-92 (Minn. App. 2009).

       The Blaine Code of Ordinances sets forth respondent’s liquor-license application

process. “Every application for a license . . . shall be on a form provided by the city” and

the “application form shall be completed to the satisfaction of the city.” Blaine, Minn.,

Code of Ordinances (BCO) ch. 6, § 6-41(a) (Apr. 16, 2009). “If the application form is not

completed to the satisfaction of the city, the form and the application shall be returned by

the city to the applicant.” Id.

       “On an initial application for a license, . . . the city shall conduct a preliminary

background and financial investigation of the applicant or it may contract with the

commissioner of public safety for the investigation.” BCO § 6-45(a) (June 16, 2016). “If

in the discretion of the city, the results of a preliminary investigation warrant, a

comprehensive background and financial investigation may occur.” BCO § 6-45(b) (June

16, 2016).

       The Blaine Code of Ordinances further provides:

                                              3
                     The city shall investigate all facts set out in the
              application and not investigated in the preliminary or
              comprehensive background and financial investigations, if
              required. Opportunity shall be given to any person to be heard
              for or against the granting of the license. After any required
              investigation and hearing, the council shall in its sound
              discretion grant or deny the application.

BCO § 6-46 (June 16, 2016) (emphasis added).

       Despite the clear mandate requiring the city council to decide whether to grant or

deny a liquor-license application, respondent conceded at oral argument that it used a

process that was not “laid out in the ordinance.” On February 22, 2023, the city council

held a hearing and provided an opportunity for any person to be heard regarding relator’s

application for on-sale and Sunday sale liquor licenses. Minutes from that meeting stated

that “all necessary paperwork and fees have been submitted to the City and staff

recommends approval of the request.” After an opportunity for public comment, of which

there was none, the council voted 5-0 to approve “On-Sale and Sunday Sale Intoxicating

Liquor Licenses” for relator’s restaurant. The meeting minutes in no way indicate that

the city council’s decision was subject to any conditions, investigation, or the submission

of additional application materials.

       However, by a letter dated March 14, 2023, the city clerk notified relator that the

Blaine Police Department had completed “the background investigation” and that based

on that investigation, relator’s application was “being denied.”         Contrary to the

representation in the minutes from the earlier council meeting, the letter indicated that

relator had not submitted all the necessary application materials. And although the letter

informed relator that “[t]he city council in its sound discretion may either grant or deny

                                            4
the application for any license” and that “[n]o applicant has a right to a license,” the letter

did not indicate that the decision to deny the licenses had been made or approved by the

city council. Indeed, the letter did not expressly or impliedly attribute the decision to the

city council, and the city council was not copied on the letter.

       Relator complains that, under the Blaine Code of Ordinances, the city council had

sole authority to grant or deny relator’s application, yet the city clerk denied the

application. Relator notes that the city clerk did not have the authority to deny the

application. Relator also notes that “the only action taken by the council itself, as reflected

in the record, was to approve [r]elator’s liquor license application” and “[t]he record does

not indicate whether the [c]ity council ever revisited the issue.” Thus, relator argues that

“the [c]ity’s decision appears to have been rendered by an improper arbiter.”

       Respondent, on the other hand, treats the denial letter from the city clerk as if it were

a decision of the city council.      In doing so, respondent urges this court to make

assumptions that are not supported by the record. For example, at oral argument to this

court, respondent argued that the city council’s unanimous vote to approve relator’s

liquor-license application after a public hearing was contingent on completion of a

background investigation. But respondent acknowledges that the minutes of the city

council meeting do not reflect that contingency. Thus, the record does not support

respondent’s argument.

       The record also does not support respondent’s argument that the license denial

communicated in the March 2023 letter from the city clerk represents a decision made by

the city council. In fact, at oral argument to this court, respondent acknowledged that the

                                               5
council did not make the decision to deny relator’s application. Instead, the city council

“defer[red]” to staff to make the decision.

       It is problematic that the only city council decision of record in this case is the

decision granting relator’s application, yet respondent argues that the application was

properly denied on the merits. It is also problematic that respondent relies on extra record

documents in support of that argument, specifically, police reports obtained after the city

council’s vote to approve relator’s application. Our review is confined “to the record

before the city council at the time it made its decision.” Hard Times Cafe, Inc. v. City of

Minneapolis, 625 N.W.2d 165, 173 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted). Thus, we do

not consider police reports that were not presented to the city council.

       Respondent argues that the decision was “made by [city] staff after reviewing the

background check instead of by the city council, but the reality [is that] action by the city

is still action by the city; the city denied the application [and] it [is] overall a discretionary

action by the city.” That argument conflicts with clear language in the Blaine Code of

Ordinances requiring a decision by the city council itself. Of course, respondent is free to

amend its procedures for granting a liquor license. See Bourbon Bar & Cafe Corp.,

466 N.W.2d at 440 (“Municipal authorities have broad discretion to determine the manner

in which liquor licenses are issued, regulated, and revoked.”). But in the meantime, we

will not overlook respondent’s failure to comply with the clear decision-making mandate

in the Blaine Code of Ordinances: “the council shall in its sound discretion grant or deny

the application.” BCO § 6-46 (emphasis added).

                                                6
       Because the city did not comply with the procedure set forth in its ordinance in

denying relator’s application, we reverse and remand for the city council to make a decision

on relator’s liquor-license application, consistent with the relevant sections of the Blaine

Code of Ordinances. See Hamline-Midway Neighborhood Stability Coal. v. City of St.

Paul, 547 N.W.2d 396, 399 (Minn. App. 1996) (reversing city’s issuance of license to sell

firearms because city did not comply with ordinance in issuing license), rev. denied (Minn.

Sept. 20, 1996).

       Reversed and remanded.

                                             7